SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Lackey/Littrell/cash to STL for Kelly/Craig
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 24, 2014 9:15:40 GMT -5
There's certainly a possibility that you're right. I certainly hope you are. But I'm not sure why you're so confident that his decreased bat speed, which lasted all year, isn't permanent. If I hadn't seen the data that Sullivan presented, I think I'd agree that he's a good bet to rebound. Having seen it, I'm not so sure. Occam Razor The most logical explanation for the decrease in bat speed is a problem that will be remedied with a full off season. Absent a permanent injury or illness, players don't suddenly lose their bat speed at age 29 and most of the evidence shows that Craig is not currently suffering from such an injury.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 24, 2014 9:32:10 GMT -5
Allen Craig because of his 2013 injury didn't workout during the offseason a year ago. That can lead to fatigue and decreased bat speed . But I don't buy that Craig suddenly forgot how to hit or that his dectrased bat speed is permenant. Given his age and the cirvumstances surrounding his 2014 performance, I think Craig is a good bet to rebound. Although we don't know to exactly what extent the 2013 injury affected his offseason, this is an excellent point. Throughout 2014, he did appear to be more "hobbled" or "clunky," if you will, and it seemed like it was due to more than just his foot.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 24, 2014 9:49:02 GMT -5
There's certainly a possibility that you're right. I certainly hope you are. But I'm not sure why you're so confident that his decreased bat speed, which lasted all year, isn't permanent. If I hadn't seen the data that Sullivan presented, I think I'd agree that he's a good bet to rebound. Having seen it, I'm not so sure. Occam Razor The most logical explanation for the decrease in bat speed is a problem that will be remedied with a full off season. Absent a permanent injury or illness, players don't suddenly lose their bat speed at age 29 and most of the evidence shows that Craig is not currently suffering from such an injury. I think this is the core point. There really needs to be some compelling evidence to have confidence in another explanation than this. Loss of bat speed last year does not equal loss of bat speed forever. And, as I keep saying, I think the reasonable downside is still a useful RH bat off the bench, essentially Johnny Gomes with more positional flexibility. Maybe he's an outlier and completely fell off a cliff, or maybe the Lisfranc injury did some kind of permanent damage, but the odds are against that being true.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 24, 2014 11:20:34 GMT -5
Here's the thing: I'm not sure the upside is much more than a slightly better Gomes, either. Craig has been a good hitter, but his poor defense and baserunning (he's been rated one of the worst baserunners in the league) as well as his durability issues have maxed him out at about two-and-a-half wins per year over his career. Over the past three years, Craig and Gomes have a nearly identical wRC+ (114 Craig, 113 Gomes) and Gomes actually has a higher fWAR per 600 PAs. Even we we look at just 2012-2013, the two come out looking very similar (Craig: 135 wRC+, 2.9 fWAR/600 PAs; Gomes: 125 wRC+, 2.6 fWAR/600 PAs).
Of course, Gomes has been heavily platooned over that time, so it's not a perfect comparison. And maybe this says more about how undervalued Gomes was/is than about how bad Craig has been. But I think the upside is more limited than some of you have been expressing. Maybe Craig can still be an above-average regular and be well-worth his contract, but I'm not sure he has star upside.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 24, 2014 11:25:12 GMT -5
Here's the thing: I'm not sure the upside is much more than a slightly better Gomes, either. Craig has been a good hitter, but his poor defense and baserunning (he's been rated one of the worst baserunners in the league) as well as his durability issues have maxed him out at about two-and-a-half wins per year over his career. Over the past three years, Craig and Gomes have a nearly identical wRC+ (114 Craig, 113 Gomes) and Gomes actually has a higher fWAR per 600 PAs. Even we we look at just 2012-2013, the two come out looking very similar (Craig: 135 wRC+, 2.9 fWAR/600 PAs; Gomes: 125 wRC+, 2.6 fWAR/600 PAs). Of course, Gomes has been heavily platooned over that time, so it's not a perfect comparison. And maybe this says more about how undervalued Gomes was/is than about how bad Craig has been. But I think the upside is more limited than some of you have been expressing. Maybe Craig can still be an above-average regular and be well-worth his contract, but I'm not sure he has star upside. the cardinals played Craig at first a lot though because of positional needs, which hurt his value a lot, and a decent amount of baserunning is on coaching
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 24, 2014 11:44:11 GMT -5
Also, this Craig is a "poor" defender stuff needs to stop. He's consistently played around average defense at the three easy positions, which, yes, gives him negative overall defensive value using positional adjustments, but he's a completely fine 1B/COF. He's significantly more reliable than Gomes in the outfield, and he's probably a better first baseman than Nava. Even in 2014 when he wasn't moving around like he previously did, he always looked competent, other than not displaying range you'd be comfortable playing in Fenway's RF on a frequent basis.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 24, 2014 12:04:54 GMT -5
Here's the thing: I'm not sure the upside is much more than a slightly better Gomes, either. Craig has been a good hitter, but his poor defense and baserunning (he's been rated one of the worst baserunners in the league) as well as his durability issues have maxed him out at about two-and-a-half wins per year over his career. Over the past three years, Craig and Gomes have a nearly identical wRC+ (114 Craig, 113 Gomes) and Gomes actually has a higher fWAR per 600 PAs. Even we we look at just 2012-2013, the two come out looking very similar (Craig: 135 wRC+, 2.9 fWAR/600 PAs; Gomes: 125 wRC+, 2.6 fWAR/600 PAs). Of course, Gomes has been heavily platooned over that time, so it's not a perfect comparison. And maybe this says more about how undervalued Gomes was/is than about how bad Craig has been. But I think the upside is more limited than some of you have been expressing. Maybe Craig can still be an above-average regular and be well-worth his contract, but I'm not sure he has star upside. the cardinals played Craig at first a lot though because of positional needs, which hurt his value a lot, and a decent amount of baserunning is on coaching Additionally as with any left fielder coming to Boston the Manny Ramirez/Carl Crawford rule applies. A below average left fielder will hurt his value less in Fenway and an above average one will have less value. There is a smaller possible variance because of the dimensions of the park. Right but that's a huge caveat. During 12-13 Craig had 1076 PAs to Gomes' 591. To truly compare the two players during those two years you have to assume that those extra 485 PAs were taken by a replacement level player and then average those with what Gomes did. I think if you did that you would find that the two are not comparable.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 24, 2014 12:31:58 GMT -5
Here's the thing: I'm not sure the upside is much more than a slightly better Gomes, either. Craig has been a good hitter, but his poor defense and baserunning (he's been rated one of the worst baserunners in the league) as well as his durability issues have maxed him out at about two-and-a-half wins per year over his career. Over the past three years, Craig and Gomes have a nearly identical wRC+ (114 Craig, 113 Gomes) and Gomes actually has a higher fWAR per 600 PAs. Even we we look at just 2012-2013, the two come out looking very similar (Craig: 135 wRC+, 2.9 fWAR/600 PAs; Gomes: 125 wRC+, 2.6 fWAR/600 PAs). Of course, Gomes has been heavily platooned over that time, so it's not a perfect comparison. And maybe this says more about how undervalued Gomes was/is than about how bad Craig has been. But I think the upside is more limited than some of you have been expressing. Maybe Craig can still be an above-average regular and be well-worth his contract, but I'm not sure he has star upside. Eh, Gomes's 2012 is a pretty big outlier in his career. His wRC+ is a good 35% higher than his career average ... But, I think your overall point is good. Allen Craig's OBP/SLG numbers have been good, but he really hasn't put up huge fWAR for a variety of reasons. So his realistic upside probably isn't that of a huge difference-maker. I think, in the end, Allen Craig will probably end up being a pretty good player, giving more or less useful offense over 450-500 PAs at a few different positions. The downside is probably not as likely as some of his detractors say, but his upside is probably not as high or as likely as some of his proponents say, either.
|
|
|
Post by pedroiaesque on Oct 24, 2014 12:53:15 GMT -5
It's a good time to revert back to the old mantra from the front office of wanting to be league average or better at every single position. In that regard, I think Craig fits the bill. He doesn't have to be a difference-maker or a star; he just has to be league average. Of course, this assumes that the team can find league-average players for a few other positions as well (CF, 3B).
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 24, 2014 12:59:52 GMT -5
But again, even citing only his AAV numbers, would you be happy if the Red Sox had signed Craig for 3/$20m, had he been a free agent this offseason? A contract like that comes with a decent bit of downside, because there's far more than a non-trivial chance that he's a replacement-level sort going forward. It's not a debilitating downside, and maybe it's a risk you take if you think the upside is there. But it is a risk, and there's no getting around that. Yes. This is such a classic Red Sox move; acquiring a player who's value is down because they're having a terrible year despite a strong overall track record. Buy low, sell high. Doesn't work in each instance but in the aggregate it's a winning strategy. So let's look at this a different way. What would such a contract buy you on the open market? Well we do have one comparable. James Loney who was also going into his age 30 year signed for 3 years 21 million after 2013. Loney of course did not have Craig's track record as a hitter, but he was coming off a good year and had a reputation as an above average 1B, but he couldn't play the OF. I would say that for me I would rather have Craig but it's not an obvious choice.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 24, 2014 13:04:28 GMT -5
It's a good time to revert back to the old mantra from the front office of wanting to be league average or better at every single position. In that regard, I think Craig fits the bill. He doesn't have to be a difference-maker or a star; he just has to be league average. Of course, this assumes that the team can find league-average players for a few other positions as well (CF, 3B). This of course represents a different problem. As Pedroia declines and Ortiz eventually retires, the Red Sox are going to need to find a couple of stars to be competitive. The hope is that Bogarts and Betts are those players.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 24, 2014 14:08:08 GMT -5
Also, this Craig is a "poor" defender stuff needs to stop. He's consistently played around average defense at the three easy positions, which, yes, gives him negative overall defensive value using positional adjustments, but he's a completely fine 1B/COF. He's significantly more reliable than Gomes in the outfield, and he's probably a better first baseman than Nava. Even in 2014 when he wasn't moving around like he previously did, he always looked competent, other than not displaying range you'd be comfortable playing in Fenway's RF on a frequent basis. That's a good point-- he's certainly a better fielder than Gomes. But he's a career -1.8 UZR outfield defender entering his thirties, which is to say that his bat has to carry him.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 24, 2014 14:14:32 GMT -5
Right but that's a huge caveat. During 12-13 Craig had 1076 PAs to Gomes' 591. To truly compare the two players during those two years you have to assume that those extra 485 PAs were taken by a replacement level player and then average those with what Gomes did. I think if you did that you would find that the two are not comparable. You're right that the historical comparison is flawed. But for the current projected 2015 roster, his most likely role would be to platoon with Nava in one of the outfield corners (or to otherwise be a bench guy hitting mostly versus LHP). In that role, it's hard to expect him to be a huge upgrade on the likes of Gomes.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 24, 2014 14:22:22 GMT -5
Gomes played a key role on a championship team, though, and was getting $5 million AAV. So even if Craig is a marginal upgrade over him, he can easily be a major contributor and is worth the 3/$20M tag. That's especially true when given Craig's ability to play first base.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 24, 2014 14:50:01 GMT -5
Gomes played a key role on a championship team, though, and was getting $5 million AAV. So even if Craig is a marginal upgrade over him, he can easily be a major contributor and is worth the 3/$20M tag. That's especially true when given Craig's ability to play first base. I agree that a better Gomes with much smaller platoon splits and the ability to play 1B would be a steal at 3/$20m. But that's what I think Craig's ceiling is, and that he has much less upside than his past MVP votes might suggest to the casual fan. I see his median projection as a Gomes or Cody Ross-type solid role player/borderline starter, which would be a good but not great deal at his AAV salary. But I think his ceiling is not that much higher than that, while his floor is much lower. His contract is cheap enough, at least in AAV terms, that the total package is pretty reasonable, and I still have him penciled in as the right-handed half of a LF platoon with Nava (and am reasonably happy about that arrangement). But I guess I'm not as optimistic as most that he'll be a big piece of the puzzle going forward.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 24, 2014 15:52:03 GMT -5
Gomes played a key role on a championship team, though, and was getting $5 million AAV. So even if Craig is a marginal upgrade over him, he can easily be a major contributor and is worth the 3/$20M tag. That's especially true when given Craig's ability to play first base. I agree that a better Gomes with much smaller platoon splits and the ability to play 1B would be a steal at 3/$20m. But that's what I think Craig's ceiling is, and that he has much less upside than his past MVP votes might suggest to the casual fan. I see his median projection as a Gomes or Cody Ross-type solid role player/borderline starter, which would be a good but not great deal at his AAV salary. But I think his ceiling is not that much higher than that, while his floor is much lower. His contract is cheap enough, at least in AAV terms, that the total package is pretty reasonable, and I still have him penciled in as the right-handed half of a LF platoon with Nava (and am reasonably happy about that arrangement). But I guess I'm not as optimistic as most that he'll be a big piece of the puzzle going forward. I think you're vastly underselling Craig's upside because of a few things. If we look at his 2012 year (the last season he wasn't hobbled with his lisfranic injury) he only played 514 PA's. If we project his WAR out to 600 PA's, we get 3.2. Also, his defense was -10, partly because the Cardinals had to play him at 1B because of a crowded outfield, and partly because of the variation in UZR numbers. I think Craig could easily be an average defender for us, since he is slightly below average, and most of that comes from range, but the other parts of his defense are a positive, because he never makes errors. The small left field will nullify the range quite a bit, but the not making errors will stay the same, so I think it's very reasonable to expect him to be average in Left Field. If he's average in Left Field, the positional adjustment will make his defense -2.5, instead of -10.9, which brings us to about 4 WAR. I think 4 WAR is fair for his upside, actually, it might be a little more than that, since his unfair defensive adjustment is multiplied when we're projecting his WAR out to 600 PA's, but he is 2 years older, so I think 4 WAR is about right for his upside. Only 4 MLB Left fielders had more than 4 WAR in 2014
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 24, 2014 17:19:48 GMT -5
I don't agree with that at all.
In 2012 and 2013 Craig's lines versus nighties were as follows. .289/.345/.482 .327/.392/.453 If he can do that he plays versus righties and Nava doesn't
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 24, 2014 17:48:33 GMT -5
I think you're vastly underselling Craig's upside because of a few things. If we look at his 2012 year (the last season he wasn't hobbled with his lisfranic injury) he only played 514 PA's. If we project his WAR out to 600 PA's, we get 3.2. Also, his defense was -10, partly because the Cardinals had to play him at 1B because of a crowded outfield, and partly because of the variation in UZR numbers. I think Craig could easily be an average defender for us, since he is slightly below average, and most of that comes from range, but the other parts of his defense are a positive, because he never makes errors. The small left field will nullify the range quite a bit, but the not making errors will stay the same, so I think it's very reasonable to expect him to be average in Left Field. If he's average in Left Field, the positional adjustment will make his defense -2.5, instead of -10.9, which brings us to about 4 WAR. I think 4 WAR is fair for his upside, actually, it might be a little more than that, since his unfair defensive adjustment is multiplied when we're projecting his WAR out to 600 PA's, but he is 2 years older, so I think 4 WAR is about right for his upside. Only 4 MLB Left fielders had more than 4 WAR in 2014 You forgot about his arm - which has been below average overall including the past three years. LF at fenway will cover up his range a bit but will magnify any issues with the arm. Also, don't forget that he is past 30 now - so any projections should be regressed a little. His upside of a superior Gomes is nice and well worth the contract especially if he's platooned with Nava to some degree. But the downside is a sub-replacement level player - and given that he was this downside in 2014; it's not a longshot that the downside is all you ever see.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 24, 2014 17:51:29 GMT -5
I don't agree with that at all. In 2012 and 2013 Craig's lines versus nighties were as follows. .289/.345/.482 .327/.392/.453 If he can do that he plays versus righties and Nava doesn't If he can do that then he's an All-Star and there's little topic for discussion. But if Nava's defensive improvements last year are for real - then he would still be a good late-game sub. (although his D in LF last year was only average)
|
|
|
Post by redsox1534 on Oct 24, 2014 18:14:37 GMT -5
Said it then and I am going to say it now hated this deal. Thought a real good prospect or two made more sense or a better veteran player. And the worst part for me was giving up my boy Littrel. Hes a MLB P. SP or RP time will tell but I think he will have lots of success one day in the Majors.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 25, 2014 12:23:48 GMT -5
Occam Razor The most logical explanation for the decrease in bat speed is a problem that will be remedied with a full off season. Absent a permanent injury or illness, players don't suddenly lose their bat speed at age 29 and most of the evidence shows that Craig is not currently suffering from such an injury. I think this is the core point. There really needs to be some compelling evidence to have confidence in another explanation than this. Loss of bat speed last year does not equal loss of bat speed forever. And, as I keep saying, I think the reasonable downside is still a useful RH bat off the bench, essentially Johnny Gomes with more positional flexibility. Maybe he's an outlier and completely fell off a cliff, or maybe the Lisfranc injury did some kind of permanent damage, but the odds are against that being true. With Cespedes, Victorino, Betts, Catillo, Nava on the roster and even Holt and JBJ, why on earth do we need a better version of Gomes?
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Oct 25, 2014 15:35:37 GMT -5
Occam Razor The most logical explanation for the decrease in bat speed is a problem that will be remedied with a full off season. Absent a permanent injury or illness, players don't suddenly lose their bat speed at age 29 and most of the evidence shows that Craig is not currently suffering from such an injury. I think this is the core point. There really needs to be some compelling evidence to have confidence in another explanation than this. Loss of bat speed last year does not equal loss of bat speed forever. And, as I keep saying, I think the reasonable downside is still a useful RH bat off the bench, essentially Johnny Gomes with more positional flexibility. Maybe he's an outlier and completely fell off a cliff, or maybe the Lisfranc injury did some kind of permanent damage, but the odds are against that being true. To what degree are you expecting his bat speed to recover? If we assume the decrease was because of some injury that he did not rest enough to recover from last off-season, he's still in the part of his career in which we would assume that there would be some decrease regardless. Given that he's coming back from significantly decreased bat speed, it's seems most likely that he would recover to some point less than what he once was. Why would it be unreasonable for him to be terrible next year? I'm not saying he definitely will be, but to say that the reasonable downside is essentially Jonny Gomes seems to say we should completely ignore last year. We shouldn't say he will be terrible (I'm not arguing that) but we also shouldn't just give it no weight at all? Given your view here, I would assume you would not be one of these people, but there are a number of people ready to declare Victorino useless, and he was a far better player for far longer than Craig before last year.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 25, 2014 16:27:48 GMT -5
No Dewey you are mistating.
Craig had a serious injury at the end of 2013. That injury prevented him from working out during the subsequent offseason. These are not claims they are facts.
A logical conclusion from these facts are that the lack of normal offseason conditioning caused a decrease in bat speed in 2014. If that's true than a normal offseason conditioning program should result in the return of his bat speed to normal levels.
Your post makes it sound like a switch goes off in a person's body that magically takes away their ability forever just because they reached a certain age. It doesn't work like that.
I see no reason to think given the facts stated above that if healthy, he shouldn't return to the mean level of ability he showed in St. Louis.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 25, 2014 16:35:26 GMT -5
I don't agree with that at all. In 2012 and 2013 Craig's lines versus nighties were as follows. .289/.345/.482 .327/.392/.453 If he can do that he plays versus righties and Nava doesn't [/ quote]If he can do that then he's an All-Star and there's little topic for discussion. But if Nava's defensive improvements last year are for real - then he would still be a good late-game sub. (although his D in LF last year was only average) Nava's place on the roster depends a loton what they plan to do with Betts. If they are committed to starting Betts in CF with Castillio in RF then it makes little sense to have Nava on the roster. If however they want to give Betts some time in Pawtuckett and give Victorino his old job back it makes more sense to keep Nava around. You know that sooner or later Victorino will get hurt and you would need someone to back him up.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 25, 2014 16:40:30 GMT -5
I think this is the core point. There really needs to be some compelling evidence to have confidence in another explanation than this. Loss of bat speed last year does not equal loss of bat speed forever. And, as I keep saying, I think the reasonable downside is still a useful RH bat off the bench, essentially Johnny Gomes with more positional flexibility. Maybe he's an outlier and completely fell off a cliff, or maybe the Lisfranc injury did some kind of permanent damage, but the odds are against that being true. With Cespedes, Victorino, Betts, Catillo, Nava on the roster and even Holt and JBJ, why on earth do we need a better version of Gomes? Jim....I think.you know that clear itself up. The team has needs to fill in the rotation and at 3b. So they will make trades. Injuries and lack of performance should take care of the rest. If Craig recovers as he logically should he will play and play a lot. I don't think anyone will question that either.
|
|
|