|
Post by rider on Jul 31, 2014 13:57:13 GMT -5
Awful trade. Not optimistic about either Kelly or Craig. Would've rather have taken back Piscotty or Kaminski if we could have.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,421
|
Post by ianrs on Jul 31, 2014 13:57:53 GMT -5
I am on the record as hating acquiring Craig as much as I hated the Carl Crawford signing. (wasn't here then, so you'll have to take my word for it) How could you have equal hate when there was 120 more million at stake in terms of risk for the Crawford signing?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 31, 2014 13:58:10 GMT -5
My problem with the Craig deal is it wasn't that long ago we were saying Peavy for Craig makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2014 13:58:08 GMT -5
Craig is a lot better than Carp. What is wrong with a Cespedes/Bradley/Craig outfield, with Victorino and Nava as the 4th/5th outfielders? Neither Craig nor Cespedes belong in RF. I disagree there. I think Craig could give you only slightly below-average defense in RF, and Cespedes probably could, too.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,421
|
Post by ianrs on Jul 31, 2014 13:58:39 GMT -5
If anything, Cespedes arm would be very nice to have in RF.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 31, 2014 13:59:38 GMT -5
I am on the record as hating acquiring Craig as much as I hated the Carl Crawford signing. (wasn't here then, so you'll have to take my word for it) Except that, at $30 million (with an option) he's a helluva lot cheaper. That was Crawford's lunch money.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 31, 2014 14:00:51 GMT -5
I think Cespedes will be fine (not great, but fine) in RF. Victorino will take some innings from him at Fenway. Nava will take some innings from Craig on the road (esp against RHP), as well as from Napoli wherever. There is absolutely no spot for Carp (unless Nava goes, and then he's valuable again).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2014 14:01:02 GMT -5
I am on the record as hating acquiring Craig as much as I hated the Carl Crawford signing. (wasn't here then, so you'll have to take my word for it) How could you have equal hate when there was 120 more million at stake in terms of risk for the Crawford signing? Smaller scale disaster. But just as dumb.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2014 14:01:31 GMT -5
My problem with the Craig deal is it wasn't that long ago we were saying Peavy for Craig makes sense. And in between then and now, we traded for Cespedes.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2014 14:02:14 GMT -5
Oh absolutely if you think that he's a bullpen guy no way you make this trade. Obviously the Red Sox think that Kelly will likely be decent starter and if they are right, I think you would agree this is the right move. But if your evaluation is right, then this was a terrible move. I'm not even totally sure about the bolded. Even if Kelly is a 2 win player, you have to think Craig is a 2 win player or better for this move to have improved the 2015 Red Sox (because you should be able to get 4 wins out of Lackey + 6m). Granted, Craig and Kelly maybe offer more long-term value than Lackey. But even that is in doubt-- they could have QOed or extended Lackey to keep him around post-2015, while Craig is entering his decline years and Kelly probably should get crowded out by a better starting pitcher sooner rather than later. I think they should have been able to get more long-term value for a very cheap, very valuable pitcher in Lackey than a couple guys who might be average regulars at best. I don't hate this trade, but I dislike it.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jul 31, 2014 14:13:02 GMT -5
Even if he is injured, you can't just assume you'll get the 2011-13 version Craig next year. His significantly down 2014 should inform his 2015 projection, and automatic projection systems are a fine enough starting point for back-of-the-envelope math like this. I get you, but what CAN you assume? That his 2011-2013 form is gone and the 2014 is the one? What about Lackey? He sucked for a few seasons before being good again. I actually like this deal, think the Red Sox got good value and didn't get shafted. Both deals, actually. I get this is a prospect based site so a lot of us get mad not getting minor leaguers, but we're in a better position to compete next season after this deals than we were before. That's all you can ask, right?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 31, 2014 14:17:34 GMT -5
Even if he is injured, you can't just assume you'll get the 2011-13 version Craig next year. His significantly down 2014 should inform his 2015 projection, and automatic projection systems are a fine enough starting point for back-of-the-envelope math like this. I get you, but what CAN you assume? That his 2011-2013 form is gone and the 2014 is the one? What about Lackey? He sucked for a few seasons before being good again. I actually like this deal, think the Red Sox got good value and didn't get shafted. Both deals, actually. I get this is a prospect based site so a lot of us get mad not getting minor leaguers, but we're in a better position to compete next season after this deals than we were before. That's all you can ask, right? Agree with Don. I think Craig's the keeper and Cespedes will be on the move.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 31, 2014 14:22:05 GMT -5
But you had Lackey at 3 wins 20 minutes ago. Plus it's nice that Lackey said that he intends to honor his 2015 option but he can always change his mind and we can argue about the probability that he will but I don't think you can argue that it's zero.
As I said I would have preferred prospects with a larger upside who couldn't help next year and were obviously riskier. But I would rather do this move than keep Lackey.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 31, 2014 14:25:38 GMT -5
Shocking news: Klaw (insider) says Sox should have gotten more for Lackey
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 31, 2014 14:27:03 GMT -5
It's like we just traded for a $10 million Mike Carp. There's no room for him on this roster. Craig is a lot better than Carp. What is wrong with a Cespedes/Bradley/Craig outfield, with Victorino and Nava as the 4th/5th outfielders? What's wrong with that is that you are paying $15M or so for a guy who was a 5 WAR player last year and a guy that you've said yourself is wonderful to sit on the bench. Me thinks they could probably make some sort of trade to get more value out of that $15M than just having it sit and rot on the bench.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2014 14:32:28 GMT -5
But you had Lackey at 3 wins 20 minutes ago. Plus it's nice that Lackey said that he intends to honor his 2015 option but he can always change his mind and we can argue about the probability that he will but I don't think you can argue that it's zero. Lackey is three wins (and that might even be a little conservative), the $6m buys you another. I think it's a virtual guarantee that Lackey would honored his contract in Boston; obviously, if you disagree, that changes your evaluation of this trade.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2014 14:44:10 GMT -5
Craig is a lot better than Carp. What is wrong with a Cespedes/Bradley/Craig outfield, with Victorino and Nava as the 4th/5th outfielders? What's wrong with that is that you are paying $15M or so for a guy who was a 5 WAR player last year and a guy that you've said yourself is wonderful to sit on the bench. Me thinks they could probably make some sort of trade to get more value out of that $15M than just having it sit and rot on the bench. As the Dodgers have taught us, some combination of injury and performance will probably resolve things, especially when you add 1B and DH to the mix. Victorino, Napoli, Ortiz, and Craig are all on the older and more injury-prone side of things, while Nava and Victorino are best suited as platoon players. Even if everyone is healthy and productive, though, you could easily have the following: DH: Ortiz 85%, Craig 15% 1B: Napoli 85%, Nava 15% LF: Cespedes 90%, Nava 10% CF: Bradley 80%, Victorino 20% RF: Craig 50%, Victorino 35%, Nava 15% That gets you: Cespedes 90%, Ortiz and Napoli 85%, Bradley 80%, Craig 65%, Victorino 55%, Nava 40%. Of course, that depends on John Farrell actually juggling the roster situation with some grace (including properly platooning, etc.), so maybe it's unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jul 31, 2014 15:19:26 GMT -5
Of course, that depends on John Farrell actually juggling the roster situation with some grace (including properly platooning, etc.), so maybe it's unrealistic. Well now that Gomes is gone with whatever shady pictures he had of Farrell we might have a shot at that.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 31, 2014 15:21:31 GMT -5
Jmei in the case you laid out you are paying $15-16M for two roster spots one of whom is barely playing more than half the games and one of whom is only paying 40% of the time. I just think that you can get more out of that money especially if you have Holt and Betts knocking around. If you move one or both of them and free up the money to get a starter.
As I said previously, I like the idea of trading some of their minor league starting pitching depth to get Cliff Lee. They could probably get that done without giving up Bogarts.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jul 31, 2014 15:23:12 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 is because this is a PROSPECTS site, and people here are infatuated with prospects to a fault. You guys would rather have a comp draft pick than Joe Kelly who averages a fastball in the mid 90s? Littrell is absolutely NOT Joe Kelly. This is not a bad haul by any means.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2014 15:27:12 GMT -5
Jmei in the case you laid out you are paying $15-16M for two roster spots one of whom is barely playing more than half the games and one of whom is only paying 40% of the time. I just think that you can get more out of that money especially if you have Holt and Betts knocking around. The $13m salary for Victorino is a sunk cost, though. With Victorino's health/performance as shaky as it is, you almost have to have a fourth outfielder who is good enough to be a full-time starter. Nava, on the other hand, will be well-worth his salary even as a part-time player. And, of course, the inevitable injuries means that having strong backup outfielders is an asset, not a liability.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 31, 2014 15:56:13 GMT -5
I didn't like seeing Lackey go, but I like this one in a relative sense more than the Lester trade.
I do find it interesting how many people here who are always eager to yell "small sample" expect Craig not to perform to his numbers and see the outlier year as what he is, and at the same time look at Cespedes and believe he will perform to the outlier year rather than the following two-year trend.
Miller and Peavy trades were clear wins. If Johnson gets DFA'd then the Drew trade will be a win, too.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jul 31, 2014 16:02:24 GMT -5
For me I'd have needed the Comp A pick to make this deal balance out as a neutral.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 31, 2014 16:17:55 GMT -5
It would only be a sunk cost if it can't be moved and I think it can if you put Nava in the deal who is going to cost what $2M next year?
Then the question becomes is if you can get more value out of the $15M by playing Nava and Victorino part time or by spending it elsewhere. Further another team with less OF depth could probably get more out of Victorino and Nava than the Sox could.
Not if Victorino is himself the fourth OF which he is in this scenario.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2014 16:22:08 GMT -5
Given that neither Cespedes nor Craig have platoon splits, I think Nava would be the 5th or 6th OF if including Holt, getting almost as little playing time as Mike Carp does now. Probably better to trade him before he asks for a trade.
|
|