|
Post by sammo420 on Jul 31, 2014 12:16:47 GMT -5
I don't mind the whole buying low on Craig, but the reason I don't like this deal is because they didn't get much if he never recovers form and we are giving up an above average starter who is signed for League Min next year (even if he says he will retire rather than play for that, which is BS imo). That has value. I'd have rather gotten a prospect along with Craig than Joe Kelly. I'd have rather had their comp pick than Kelly.
|
|
|
Post by trotnixonforever on Jul 31, 2014 12:17:11 GMT -5
Alex Speier ?@alexspeier 4s Sources: Red Sox are sending LHP Corey Littrell to Cardinals as part of the Lackey deal. 2013 5th rounder out of Kentucky Our farm system has taken a step back today. Who saw that coming? Littrell is 22 and at A+ and looking pretty average. Kinda like Joe Kelly. The comp pick from the As is worth more than Littrell.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 31, 2014 12:17:34 GMT -5
Kelly is not good, and his WHIP makes me sick to my stomach. How is he an upgrade over the AAA guys? And how is Craig an upgrade over Nava, who was already looking like a bench player with Cespedes on the team? Where has anyone suggested Joe Kelly is better than the AAA guys?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2014 12:17:56 GMT -5
Here's the thing: even if we accept that they're contending for 2015, what's more valuable next year: Kelly and Craig or Lackey at the minimum? There's a really strong argument to be made that it's Lackey.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 31, 2014 12:18:23 GMT -5
Are you guys on drugs??? This is a fantastic haul. Textbook buy low on Craig and Kelly. Can we all calm down. Definitely helps us compete next year which is Ben Cherington's goal. I'm a prospect junkie but this is just good value. I think once again they are giving up value all to get players who can help the 2015 team. It's a bad strategy and I think it will ultimately backfire. Craig can hit but his value has been driven down by a myriad of injuries. Kelly is more of a backend guy for me and over the next few years won't be better than guys we already have. Again give me the pitcher who isn't going to help next year, like Jameson Taillon, but has higher upside.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,405
|
Post by ianrs on Jul 31, 2014 12:18:31 GMT -5
Littrell at 22 in A+: 4.16 FIP, 2.39 K/BB Kelly at 23 in pitcher friendly FSL A+: 3.60 FIP, 1.82 K/BB
Just an atrocious deal with the 1.75 mill as well. Littrell could end up being Kelly in a few years. I understand Kelly has better stuff and prospects are difficult to project but still...
I hope to god Craig is injured and bounces back next year.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 31, 2014 12:18:47 GMT -5
I don't mind the whole buying low on Craig, but the reason I don't like this deal is because they didn't get much if he never recovers form and we are giving up an above average starter who is signed for League Min next year (even if he says he will retire rather than play for that, which is BS imo). That has value. I'd have rather gotten a prospect along with Craig than Joe Kelly. I'd have rather had their comp pick than Kelly. Fair point, I'd agree.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jul 31, 2014 12:18:56 GMT -5
Can someone direct me to a credible person in baseball who thinks this is a bad haul for the Sox? I'll hang up and listen. C’mon man, could you imagine the reaction yesterday, if someone would have come out and said “wouldn’t it be great if the Sox could turn Lester and Lackey into Cespedes, Craig and Joe Kelly tomorrow.” They would have been banned from the site for life.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jul 31, 2014 12:21:46 GMT -5
Kelly is not good, and his WHIP makes me sick to my stomach. How is he an upgrade over the AAA guys? And how is Craig an upgrade over Nava, who was already looking like a bench player with Cespedes on the team? Where has anyone suggested Joe Kelly is better than the AAA guys? If he starts over them the Sox are. 40 man moves coming
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 31, 2014 12:24:13 GMT -5
Here's the thing: even if we accept that they're contending for 2015, what's more valuable next year: Kelly and Craig or Lackey at the minimum? There's a really strong argument to be made that it's Lackey. I guess, but I don't think Lackey plays anywhere for $500k, and I think the Sox know that. Anyway, they doubled the number of players with career 120 OPS+ on their team today. Doubled. I don't love Kelly b/c I dislike low SO pitchers in general, but he is flexible, has an option remaining (at least), and throws 95 with a 50%+ GB rate and a 2:1 SO/BB ratio at 26 (granted in a lot of relief appearances). I mean, that isn't great, but I'd bet on him having a better career than Renaudo or Barnes, imho.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 31, 2014 12:24:13 GMT -5
This is the only place that hates this trade. Almost every reporter and scout in twitter LOVES this for the sox
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by grinandbarrett on Jul 31, 2014 12:24:32 GMT -5
I'm OK with the trade. The Sox gave up a 35 year old pitcher in Lackey, who had Tommy John Surgery. Recent history shows Tommy John returnees are at risk of having issues again 400IP removed from the surgery. I know that's not predictable - just saying his risk goes up next year. And no one should think that Lackey pitching for $500k next year was going to end well. I like the buy low on Craig. The Sox will find a way to make Kelly a usable arm. It's not that bad of a haul, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2014 12:25:05 GMT -5
Here's the thing: even if we accept that they're contending for 2015, what's more valuable next year: Kelly and Craig or Lackey at the minimum? There's a really strong argument to be made that it's Lackey. Lackey was never going to pitch for the league minimum. For $500 K, he'd instead take the entire year off, hang out with the family, barbecue, watch the kids grow, etc. Just from the standpoint of him potentially being injured during 2015, it never made sense for him to play for that little. That contract clause was ill conceived from the get go. Even if you accept the above (which I don't), the 2015 option at least makes it really easy to sign Lackey to a reasonable extension. Say, tear up the 2015 option and do 2/$20m.
|
|
|
Post by trotnixonforever on Jul 31, 2014 12:26:17 GMT -5
If Workman and Webster were better than Kelly right now, they'd probably already be in the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 31, 2014 12:26:39 GMT -5
Like the other deal I'm disappointed at first but the more I think about it, I'm ok with it. Granted I'd love the deal if we got the Cardinals comp pick (which I feel like they don't deserve in the first place) but it could be worse. They should have sent us a minor leaguer instead of the other way around.
I guess I like the relative return from the Peavy deal the best, but there's still a return from Miller to come. Hopefully here is where we get our prospect.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Jul 31, 2014 12:28:13 GMT -5
This is the only place that hates this trade. Almost every reporter and scout in twitter LOVES this for the sox Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk this site loves prospects too much. When I saw the returns I knew this site would hate them because they were so geared up for getting new shiny toy prospects that they don't like what is actually a better return
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jul 31, 2014 12:34:54 GMT -5
Here's the thing: even if we accept that they're contending for 2015, what's more valuable next year: Kelly and Craig or Lackey at the minimum? There's a really strong argument to be made that it's Lackey. Lackey was never going to pitch for the league minimum. For $500 K, he'd instead take the entire year off, hang out with the family, barbecue, watch the kids grow, etc. Just from the standpoint of him potentially being injured during 2015, it never made sense for him to play for that little. That contract clause was ill conceived from the get go. If he did/does that doesn't he get a grivance filed against him and would be under team control for the next year ('16) too?
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Jul 31, 2014 12:34:56 GMT -5
Ownership must have made it clear they didn't want to lose too much revenue this year by trading everyone away, so they are insisting on major league players rather than prospects.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 31, 2014 12:37:10 GMT -5
Lackey was never going to pitch for the league minimum. For $500 K, he'd instead take the entire year off, hang out with the family, barbecue, watch the kids grow, etc. Just from the standpoint of him potentially being injured during 2015, it never made sense for him to play for that little. That contract clause was ill conceived from the get go. Even if you accept the above (which I don't), the 2015 option at least makes it really easy to sign Lackey to a reasonable extension. Say, tear up the 2015 option and do 2/$20m. Assuming that Allen Craig returns to a 120 OPS+ hitter (a big assumption, of course), you don't like trading for him vs. keeping a 37ish year old Lackey at $10mm a year? (I think 2/20 is slightly low - 2/25-30 is more likely, but either way, really).
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 31, 2014 12:37:42 GMT -5
Lackey was never going to pitch for the league minimum. For $500 K, he'd instead take the entire year off, hang out with the family, barbecue, watch the kids grow, etc. Just from the standpoint of him potentially being injured during 2015, it never made sense for him to play for that little. That contract clause was ill conceived from the get go. If he did/does that doesn't he get a grivance filed against him and would be under team control for the next year ('16) too? No; he'd be on the restricted list, his contract would be up, and then he'd be a FA and no longer subject to the restricted list.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 31, 2014 12:40:42 GMT -5
This is the only place that hates this trade. Almost every reporter and scout in twitter LOVES this for the sox Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk That's because the Red Sox got well known players in return as opposed to prospects none of them had ever heard of a week ago.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2014 12:43:28 GMT -5
This is the only place that hates this trade. Almost every reporter and scout in twitter LOVES this for the sox Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk this site loves prospects too much. When I saw the returns I knew this site would hate them because they were so geared up for getting new shiny toy prospects that they don't like what is actually a better return You know who else loves the trade? Cardinals fans who are pretty certain that Craig is done and that Kelly isn't ever going to be more than he is now, which is kinda lucky in a pitcher's park.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 31, 2014 12:43:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Jul 31, 2014 12:43:39 GMT -5
I can't say that I'm in love with this trade, but the reaction from this site once again proves that some people prefer to be the #1 farm system in baseball as opposed to being the best team. I get that Piscotty could give us 6 solid, cost-controlled years, but no prospect is a guarantee. Go look at the 2015 free agent class (hitters), it's horrendous. Are there any hitters like 30-year old Craig on the free agent market (.917/.876/.830 OPS 2011-2013) who we could sign to a 4 year/$38.5mil deal? Absolutely not. This is an excellent buy low. Regarding Kelly, he makes for a great set-up man who's under team control for the next 4 years. That's better than a prospect to me. Once again, this is a case of prospects being overvalued, something Beane has picked up on.
Plus, Lackey playing for $500K was setting up to be a disaster.
|
|
Coins
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Coins on Jul 31, 2014 12:43:47 GMT -5
Honestly this is disappointing
|
|