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.
|
Post by jmei on Oct 8, 2014 21:41:39 GMT -5
My rationale in terms of trading Betts for Donaldson are that even if Donaldson is at his peak and only gets worse than here, he is still overwhelmingly likely to be a significantly better player than Betts over the next four years. Maybe Donaldson is not that much better a hitter than Betts going forward, but he'll still be a better defender (he's been +10 or better by both DRS and UZR in each of the last two years) at a position much higher up on the defensive spectrum. It's just really tough for a corner outfielder to be a sustainably elite player without plus-plus power or Gold Glove defense, which Betts doesn't really have (he could grow into the latter, but that takes a leap of faith that I'm not comfortable making).
So going from Betts to Donaldson means you give up two years of team control (and the difference in salary between league-minimum and a fourth year of arb) for the less risky, better present player. It also has the peripheral benefit of resolving an outfield logjam and filling a position of need that you'd otherwise need to dip into free agency for (though it'd mean an unresolved leadoff spot).
That's a tradeoff that I think is reasonable for a team in win-now mode to make, largely because 2015 production is more valuable to them than 2020 production. Plus, the fact that Donaldson's salary will escalate is not that big of a deal for a big-market team that can easily afford to drop $15m+ a year for a legit superstar (for a large-market team like the Red Sox, their $/WAR rate is effectively higher since they fill more holes through free agency; player value is also exponential rather than linear if you're a team with no replacement-level spots that you can easily upgrade).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 8, 2014 22:00:29 GMT -5
Comment From personable person Hey Dave, I ran this by Jeff yesterday and he seemed a little intrigued so I want to run it by you. I hate trade proposals but here goes: The A’s are in kind of rebuild/go-for-it-again limbo. The Red Sox seem poised to make a run of it though, and they need a 3B. Would a Donaldson for Betts trade make sense? There would of course be some finer details to the deal, but Donaldson is going to get too expensive for the A’s in a year or two probably and he’s right at his peak. Betts would give the A’s cheap value over a while, and the Red Sox would get a peak-ish 3B for a solid run. Any thoughts? 12:54 Dave Cameron: I don’t think the Red Sox would do it. Donaldson is a Super Two, so he’s about to get expensive, and he’s an older player who has probably already peaked. From Dave Cameron's chat today. So it's not a slam dunk among people in the industry that Betts would HAVE to be included. Also Freddy, how is that nit picking? What you said just isn't true. For example, the Dodgers have 3 of the best prospects in the game (Urias, Seager, and Joc Pederson) if someone made a trade for one of them do you think fans would be whining about the fact that he was the 3rd best prospect on the team? The Red Sox have a very good farm system and their 4th and 5th best prospects are both really highly rated. Swihart and Owens may not be enough to get Donaldson but I don't think it has anything to do with them being the 4th and 5th best prospects on the team Not to make it sound like I'm crapping on him, but Dave Cameron isn't a "person in the industry." He's a stat guy and writer who, as far as I know, doesn't have any actual ties to the industry. He's basically if, like, Eric had started a Red Sox website instead of posting on SOSH, then got hired by Fangraphs instead of being hired by the Red Sox for a while. I don't know him to actually be tied in with anyone whose opinions he could get - he's just espousing his opinion based on, I'm assuming, statistics alone. Again, that's not saying Cameron isn't worth reading. I'm just saying it's not like he's talked to a bunch of front office people to form this opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 8, 2014 22:29:23 GMT -5
You might be selling Cameron a little short. He isn't exactly an industry insider or anything, but he has a fair number of contacts in front offices across the league and regularly discusses player valuation with them as part of his trade value series (he gets feedback on his trade value series in the same way that Jim Callis gets feedback on his prospect rankings-- he sends it to a bunch of baseball executives and they tell him who he has ranked too high or too low). He almost certainly has no insight on this specific situation, (i.e., how Oakland values Donaldson or how the Red Sox value Betts), but he's more informed on how teams generally value players than randominternetguy.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 8, 2014 22:58:50 GMT -5
Honestly, I have little to no desire to see Betts or Bogaerts dealt. I think they are cornerstones on this team and if Betts is the player we think he is, he might be somebody the Sox should try to tie up beyond his free agent years, kind of the way they did with Buchholz if Betts is willing.
I like Donaldson, but when WAR is heavily defensive weighted, I tend to distrust the stat. Donaldson is a really good player but I'd rather have Betts over the next six years than Donaldson over the next four. I think Betts will develop enough pop to hit 15 - 20 homers per year and will swipe 30 - 40 bases per year and will challenge for a batting title, and will render all questions about who should lead off for the Sox a moot point. I have trouble believing that Donaldson will be more valuable than that as good as he is.
If there is a deal to be had then I'm sure Swihart is a key component as would be Rodriguez and another prime prospect like Margot or Devers and I'm sure Cecchini would be involved as well.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Oct 8, 2014 23:26:30 GMT -5
My rationale in terms of trading Betts for Donaldson are that even if Donaldson is at his peak and only gets worse than here, he is still overwhelmingly likely to be a significantly better player than Betts over the next four years. Maybe Donaldson is not that much better a hitter than Betts going forward, but he'll still be a better defender (he's been +10 or better by both DRS and UZR in each of the last two years) at a position much higher up on the defensive spectrum. It's just really tough for a corner outfielder to be a sustainably elite player without plus-plus power or Gold Glove defense, which Betts doesn't really have (he could grow into the latter, but that takes a leap of faith that I'm not comfortable making). So going from Betts to Donaldson means you give up two years of team control (and the difference in salary between league-minimum and a fourth year of arb) for the less risky, better present player. It also has the peripheral benefit of resolving an outfield logjam and filling a position of need that you'd otherwise need to dip into free agency for (though it'd mean an unresolved leadoff spot). That's a tradeoff that I think is reasonable for a team in win-now mode to make, largely because 2015 production is more valuable to them than 2020 production. Plus, the fact that Donaldson's salary will escalate is not that big of a deal for a big-market team that can easily afford to drop $15m+ a year for a legit superstar (for a large-market team like the Red Sox, their $/WAR rate is effectively higher since they fill more holes through free agency; player value is also exponential rather than linear if you're a team with no replacement-level spots that you can easily upgrade). You are probably being more rational than I am here, but I don't agree with what I've bolded above. Even though FanGraphs has him at 6.4 wins this year, between regression and age-related decline he seems likely to be more like a 5 win player next year. Regression somewhat in offense, but also in defense and in playing time (he's missed a total of 8 games the last two years). I don't know what the best forecasts would say, but it's pretty standard to assume a half-win decline each year after 30, which would put him at 4.5, 4, and 3.5 wins for the following three years. I'm probably being ridiculously optimistic, but I would say that Betts has a good chance of being a 4 win player in 2017 and 18. I think it's pretty realistic to think he can add half a win both defensively and with his baserunning, and I think he could easily add more in both. Given his contact skills, decent power, and ability to take a walk, I think a win at the plate is very realistic, and more isn't out of the question. With two wins for replacement level, that's a 4 win player. I get why you would say that you're not comfortable projecting Betts for great defense, and that's probably the logical decision. But given how well Betts has adjusted to everything he's needed to adjust to, how he's flown threw the system, and his baseball (and seemingly, non-baseball) IQ and athleticism, I actually don't think it's a huge leap of faith. All of that is to say that while I'd certainly bet on Donaldson being the better player next year, and probably in 2016, I don't think it's overwhelmingly likely that he's better for the next four years. The other aspect to this is that the one way in which Donaldson is not a perfect fit is that he's a righty. Now, it's certainly not something that's a deal-breaker, but having only one quality left-handed bat is far from ideal. Maybe they're able to turn some of the outfielders or Napoli into similarly valuable left-handed hitters, but as it stands the Sox have Ortiz and possibly Nava as left-handed hitters for next year.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Oct 8, 2014 23:35:11 GMT -5
One other thing. I'd never say never, but I think the premise of Rosenthal's piece is off. The A's are hardly in need of a rebuild. They will lose some pieces this off-season, but the fact that they played bad baseball for two months does not make them a bad team. It's a very talented, deep team and I would be surprised if Beane trades for prospects. I could see him trading for major league talent, but I think it's unlikely that he gives up quality major leaguers without getting major leaguers in return.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Oct 8, 2014 23:41:18 GMT -5
Comment From personable person Hey Dave, I ran this by Jeff yesterday and he seemed a little intrigued so I want to run it by you. I hate trade proposals but here goes: The A’s are in kind of rebuild/go-for-it-again limbo. The Red Sox seem poised to make a run of it though, and they need a 3B. Would a Donaldson for Betts trade make sense? There would of course be some finer details to the deal, but Donaldson is going to get too expensive for the A’s in a year or two probably and he’s right at his peak. Betts would give the A’s cheap value over a while, and the Red Sox would get a peak-ish 3B for a solid run. Any thoughts? 12:54 Dave Cameron: I don’t think the Red Sox would do it. Donaldson is a Super Two, so he’s about to get expensive, and he’s an older player who has probably already peaked. From Dave Cameron's chat today. So it's not a slam dunk among people in the industry that Betts would HAVE to be included. Also Freddy, how is that nit picking? What you said just isn't true. For example, the Dodgers have 3 of the best prospects in the game (Urias, Seager, and Joc Pederson) if someone made a trade for one of them do you think fans would be whining about the fact that he was the 3rd best prospect on the team? The Red Sox have a very good farm system and their 4th and 5th best prospects are both really highly rated. Swihart and Owens may not be enough to get Donaldson but I don't think it has anything to do with them being the 4th and 5th best prospects on the team Seager is a top 3 prospect at his position, Urias might be the best LHP and Pederson is a top 5 OF prospect... I said 4th and 5th best prospect, how does your rebuttal defeat my point?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 9, 2014 6:15:39 GMT -5
You might be selling Cameron a little short. He isn't exactly an industry insider or anything, but he has a fair number of contacts in front offices across the league and regularly discusses player valuation with them as part of his trade value series (he gets feedback on his trade value series in the same way that Jim Callis gets feedback on his prospect rankings-- he sends it to a bunch of baseball executives and they tell him who he has ranked too high or too low). He almost certainly has no insight on this specific situation, (i.e., how Oakland values Donaldson or how the Red Sox value Betts), but he's more informed on how teams generally value players than randominternetguy. Huh. OK then. Didn't realize that, but will take your word for it. I guess just knowing what I know about how easy it is to write for Fangraphs (as scout friend just kind of started writing for them under a pseudonym at one point before he got hired a couple years back), I tend to not give much weight to the writing side over there. Probably not fair on my part.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 9, 2014 8:37:27 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong I'd love to have Donaldson but not at the price it would cost. We'd get four years from age 29-32 but the hope of watching Xander or Betts for the next decade trumps that.
|
|
|
Post by auger1 on Oct 9, 2014 8:51:15 GMT -5
Comment From personable person Hey Dave, I ran this by Jeff yesterday and he seemed a little intrigued so I want to run it by you. I hate trade proposals but here goes: The A’s are in kind of rebuild/go-for-it-again limbo. The Red Sox seem poised to make a run of it though, and they need a 3B. Would a Donaldson for Betts trade make sense? There would of course be some finer details to the deal, but Donaldson is going to get too expensive for the A’s in a year or two probably and he’s right at his peak. Betts would give the A’s cheap value over a while, and the Red Sox would get a peak-ish 3B for a solid run. Any thoughts? 12:54 Dave Cameron: I don’t think the Red Sox would do it. Donaldson is a Super Two, so he’s about to get expensive, and he’s an older player who has probably already peaked. From Dave Cameron's chat today. So it's not a slam dunk among people in the industry that Betts would HAVE to be included. Also Freddy, how is that nit picking? What you said just isn't true. For example, the Dodgers have 3 of the best prospects in the game (Urias, Seager, and Joc Pederson) if someone made a trade for one of them do you think fans would be whining about the fact that he was the 3rd best prospect on the team? The Red Sox have a very good farm system and their 4th and 5th best prospects are both really highly rated. Swihart and Owens may not be enough to get Donaldson but I don't think it has anything to do with them being the 4th and 5th best prospects on the team Seager is a top 3 prospect at his position, Urias might be the best LHP and Pederson is a top 5 OF prospect... I said 4th and 5th best prospect, how does your rebuttal defeat my point? Ok I am really not sure what you mean at this point. Do you mean in all of baseball? On one team? Because originally it sounded like you were saying on one team, now it sounds like you mean in all of the majors. If you want to go that route, I think that Swihart is considered the best catching prospect in all of the majors and Owens is one of the top 4 or 5 LHP prospects. Either way, you called me out for a pretty innocent question of what you posted as "nitpicking". My point was that depending on the depth of a team's system, teams don't have to trade their best prospect/young player to get back someone of value. I'll leave it alone since this isn't germane to the discussion but just wanted to clarify what I meant
|
|
|
Post by auger1 on Oct 9, 2014 8:58:16 GMT -5
Not to make it sound like I'm crapping on him, but Dave Cameron isn't a "person in the industry." He's a stat guy and writer who, as far as I know, doesn't have any actual ties to the industry. He's basically if, like, Eric had started a Red Sox website instead of posting on SOSH, then got hired by Fangraphs instead of being hired by the Red Sox for a while. I don't know him to actually be tied in with anyone whose opinions he could get - he's just espousing his opinion based on, I'm assuming, statistics alone. Again, that's not saying Cameron isn't worth reading. I'm just saying it's not like he's talked to a bunch of front office people to form this opinion. Chris, Yeah Cameron isn't really plugged in like a Ken Rosenthal but I did think it was interesting that someone in the national media said that because we kind of get caught in our little bubble and overvalue our own, so I mostly posted it to prove that people weren't being really unreasonable or "prospect worshippers" when saying they wouldn't trade Betts for Donaldson. I do want to add to this that Cameron is known as someone that really values young players and prospects, to the point that some people think it's over the top. But I thought it was a good addition to the discussion, especially since someone posted his 2014 trade value column early in this thread. To sort of right this ship since I feel like I kind of steered it of course, over on SoSH I posted a hypothetical trade of our top 4 prospects (as listed on this site) for Donaldson and people thought that was a big overpay. I wonder if Swihart, Owens, Cecchini, and Marrero for just Donaldson would do the trick. If you add Samardzija to it you would obviously have to add a good amount more of substance but I think the Sox could go out and sign 2 pretty good starters, or maybe trade Cespedes for a starter. (I know Jon Heyman speculated YC for Jon Niese)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 11:13:29 GMT -5
You are probably being more rational than I am here, but I don't agree with what I've bolded above. Even though FanGraphs has him at 6.4 wins this year, between regression and age-related decline he seems likely to be more like a 5 win player next year. Regression somewhat in offense, but also in defense and in playing time (he's missed a total of 8 games the last two years). I don't know what the best forecasts would say, but it's pretty standard to assume a half-win decline each year after 30, which would put him at 4.5, 4, and 3.5 wins for the following three years. I'm probably being ridiculously optimistic, but I would say that Betts has a good chance of being a 4 win player in 2017 and 18. I think it's pretty realistic to think he can add half a win both defensively and with his baserunning, and I think he could easily add more in both. Given his contact skills, decent power, and ability to take a walk, I think a win at the plate is very realistic, and more isn't out of the question. With two wins for replacement level, that's a 4 win player. I get why you would say that you're not comfortable projecting Betts for great defense, and that's probably the logical decision. But given how well Betts has adjusted to everything he's needed to adjust to, how he's flown threw the system, and his baseball (and seemingly, non-baseball) IQ and athleticism, I actually don't think it's a huge leap of faith. All of that is to say that while I'd certainly bet on Donaldson being the better player next year, and probably in 2016, I don't think it's overwhelmingly likely that he's better for the next four years. The other aspect to this is that the one way in which Donaldson is not a perfect fit is that he's a righty. Now, it's certainly not something that's a deal-breaker, but having only one quality left-handed bat is far from ideal. Maybe they're able to turn some of the outfielders or Napoli into similarly valuable left-handed hitters, but as it stands the Sox have Ortiz and possibly Nava as left-handed hitters for next year. I don't really disagree with much of this. My point is that even if, over the next four years, Donaldson is a 5/5/4.5/4 win player, it may still be worth it to trade a guy in Betts who is probably a four win player for him. The "overwhelming" comment was meant to suggest that if you added up each player's production over the next four years and make the somewhat generous assumption that Betts is a four-win player as soon as next year, Donaldson still almost certainly comes out on top by a couple wins. And for a win-now team like the Red Sox, those extra couple wins in 2015 and 2016 can outweigh the prospect of a potential four-win player in 2019 and 2020, because rational actors discount distant future payoffs in favor of present ones. This is especially true because the Red Sox next-best options in RF are substantially better than their next-best options at 3B. Between Nava and one of Victorino/Craig/Brentz/Hassan, they should be able to cobble together a 2.5 win right field, whereas I think the Holt/Middlebrooks/Cecchini combo as a 1.5 win group at best. That's effectively an extra win in favor of Donaldson, and a big factor in why I'd be willing to make that trade. I don't see the L/R thing being a problem since you'd be swapping out one right-handed-hitting starter for another (though Donaldson has some pretty serious splits).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 11:27:30 GMT -5
You might be selling Cameron a little short. He isn't exactly an industry insider or anything, but he has a fair number of contacts in front offices across the league and regularly discusses player valuation with them as part of his trade value series (he gets feedback on his trade value series in the same way that Jim Callis gets feedback on his prospect rankings-- he sends it to a bunch of baseball executives and they tell him who he has ranked too high or too low). He almost certainly has no insight on this specific situation, (i.e., how Oakland values Donaldson or how the Red Sox value Betts), but he's more informed on how teams generally value players than randominternetguy. Huh. OK then. Didn't realize that, but will take your word for it. I guess just knowing what I know about how easy it is to write for Fangraphs (as scout friend just kind of started writing for them under a pseudonym at one point before he got hired a couple years back), I tend to not give much weight to the writing side over there. Probably not fair on my part. Dave Cameron is not just some writer at Fangraphs though. He's their lead writer, the effective face of Fangraphs, and has been in that role for roughly a decade. He's probably one of the twenty most-read baseball writers today and is a BBWAA member who has an MVP vote (that's not some spectacular achievement or anything, but it does say something about his standing in the baseball writing hierarchy). A couple dozen of the guys who have worked under him now work in front offices across the league, and he does have contacts in the industry (I think he's mentioned in one of his podcasts that he knows someone in all but five of the league's front offices or something). I don't want to hype him up too much, since he certainly doesn't have any inside insight on this specific situation and so his opinion is still not worth much more than the average informed opinion. But he's also not just some random blogger, and I've give his take about as much weight as, say, Keith Law's or Pete Abraham's or something (note that I don't hold those guys in high regard, but their takes are worth something when you're trying to gauge somebody's trade value).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 11:32:10 GMT -5
To sort of right this ship since I feel like I kind of steered it of course, over on SoSH I posted a hypothetical trade of our top 4 prospects (as listed on this site) for Donaldson and people thought that was a big overpay. I wonder if Swihart, Owens, Cecchini, and Marrero for just Donaldson would do the trick. If you add Samardzija to it you would obviously have to add a good amount more of substance but I think the Sox could go out and sign 2 pretty good starters, or maybe trade Cespedes for a starter. (I know Jon Heyman speculated YC for Jon Niese) To reiterate what dewey1972 said earlier, I don't think Beane trades Donaldson for a package like this that's headlined by two guys who aren't MLB-ready. Even with some expected free agent losses, Oakland's core is pretty strong, and they're not going into a full rebuild. You'd have to think another team would be willing to give up two better headliners than Swihart and Owens-- guys that have their ceilings but are also MLB-ready. ADD: if the above package (Swihart/Owens/Cecchini/Marrero) is all it took, though, I'd be all over it (I don't think it's enough, though). I'd maybe even do Swihart/Owens/Margot/Devers, though the last two names do give me some pause.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 9, 2014 11:41:49 GMT -5
Pedroia for Donaldson
Just throwing that out there, and I don't think we should do it. But it makes sense for both teams.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 11:47:56 GMT -5
Pedroia for Donaldson Just throwing that out there, and I don't think we should do it. But it makes sense for both teams. How does it make sense for Oakland? They're trading for an older, worse, and more expensive player. Pedroia's contract (15:$12.5M, 16:$13M, 17:$15M, 18:$16M, 19:$15M, 20:$13M, 21:$12M) is chump change for the Red Sox and certainly below-market, but it's still probably less than what Donaldson is going to get in arb.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 9, 2014 12:14:37 GMT -5
Huh. OK then. Didn't realize that, but will take your word for it. I guess just knowing what I know about how easy it is to write for Fangraphs (as scout friend just kind of started writing for them under a pseudonym at one point before he got hired a couple years back), I tend to not give much weight to the writing side over there. Probably not fair on my part. Dave Cameron is not just some writer at Fangraphs though. He's their lead writer, the effective face of Fangraphs, and has been in that role for roughly a decade. He's probably one of the twenty most-read baseball writers today and is a BBWAA member who has an MVP vote (that's not some spectacular achievement or anything, but it does say something about his standing in the baseball writing hierarchy). A couple dozen of the guys who have worked under him now work in front offices across the league, and he does have contacts in the industry (I think he's mentioned in one of his podcasts that he knows someone in all but five of the league's front offices or something). I don't want to hype him up too much, since he certainly doesn't have any inside insight on this specific situation and so his opinion is still not worth much more than the average informed opinion. But he's also not just some random blogger, and I've give his take about as much weight as, say, Keith Law's or Pete Abraham's or something (note that I don't hold those guys in high regard, but their takes are worth something when you're trying to gauge somebody's trade value). Fair. Just saying why I generally have a bias against Fangraphs in general on the writing side.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 9, 2014 15:40:42 GMT -5
I'd maybe even do Swihart/Owens/Margot/Devers, though the last two names do give me some pause. Jesus, are you trying to give me a heart attack? I like Donaldson too, but that's too much talent to give up. I know it's easy to get caught up in upside, but it's not hard to envision all four of them becoming All-Stars. Swihart and Owens are already in Triple-A, Margot was a big prospect even before his power exploded this year, and Devers has real 35 homer potential. Plus, if you deal that package they probably can't trade for another high-level player for two years. The system would be totally gutted.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 15:56:11 GMT -5
Yeah, it'd gut the system (especially in the medium/long term), but you'd have a position-player core of Donaldson, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Betts, Castillo, and Vazquez that has all the up-the-middle positions covered with above-average regulars. In theory, you wouldn't have to trade for elite talent, at least not on the position-player side. There would be a big gap in the system three or so years from now, but that's the nature of a win-now move.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 9, 2014 16:33:04 GMT -5
I just don't think you can go into win-now mode like that without being positive that Betts/Bogaerts/Castillo is a championship-quality core. Trading those four for Donaldson would be sacrificing four potential long-term all-stars for a short-term that may not be there.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 9, 2014 16:37:57 GMT -5
I think a Donaldson+Samardjiza combo package would take a bit less than many expect (as I don't think Beane will get close to a dollar for dollar return on Samardjiza) but any package for Donaldson probably starts with Betts. Major league ready and fills a big hole.
If Beane isn't getting Betts in the return for Donaldson, then why make the trade? He can always wait til next year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 9, 2014 17:19:46 GMT -5
Yeah, it'd gut the system (especially in the medium/long term), but you'd have a position-player core of Donaldson, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Betts, Castillo, and Vazquez that has all the up-the-middle positions covered with above-average regulars. In theory, you wouldn't have to trade for elite talent, at least not on the position-player side. There would be a big gap in the system three or so years from now, but that's the nature of a win-now move. I'm with Dunnzo. Whether or not that's too much from a "it's too much for this player, value-wise" perspective, it'd be too much to give up for one guy in terms of if this one human being suddenly develops some awful injury issue, you've gutted the system for nothing. and in addition to losing two top-40-ish prospects, you'd be absolutely GUTTING the system of position players. They're thin enough in that respect right now, but even though I think I get where you're coming from with trading Devers (PT issue with Chavis), you'd have a 2-3 level gap, depending where Chavis gets assigned without any elite position player prospects. Rijo and Guerra are nice, but nyahhhhhh.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 17:30:55 GMT -5
I just don't think you can go into win-now mode like that without being positive that Betts/Bogaerts/Castillo is a championship-quality core. Trading those four for Donaldson would be sacrificing four potential long-term all-stars for a short-term that may not be there. I certainly think those six guys (the above three plus Donaldson, Pedroia, and Vazquez) are a division-contending core, and as these playoffs have taught us, that's pretty much all you can ask for. You'd conservatively expect that group to give you in the neighborhood of 20 wins for less than $50m combined, which is most of the way to the 50ish wins you need to win a division. And they're all under control for the next four years, with the remaining three positions (1B/LF/DH) being the easiest to fill through free agency. The pitching side looks much weaker, but they'd still have a crapton of cash to spend and a few good pitching prospects (Rodriguez, Johnson, Barnes, etc.). I guess a good chunk of my thought process is that sometimes you just have to sell high on prospects. I honestly think the collective odds of any of those four becoming a five-win player in the major leagues are less than Donaldson's rather high odds of being that guy next year. They have high ceilings, but we have to be realistic about how likely it is that they reach those ceilings. Just look how they're rated by the industry-- Swihart and Owens might crack the bottom bit of the top 20, but Devers and Margot will be back-end top 100 guys just because they're so far away from the majors. If you were told that Donaldson was traded for two top 20 guys and two top 100 guys, that would seem reasonable, right?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 17:41:12 GMT -5
I have my doubts that Donaldson will continue to produce at this level. I'm also skeptical of players whose "WAR" is tied up to defense. I wanted to respond to this quickly-- while Donaldson is also a very good defensive player, he's not one of those guys like Jason Heyward or Alex Gordon where he'd be just an above-average guy without the defense. Even purely as a hitter, he's one of the elite players in the league. Per Baseball-Reference's version of WAR, he's been worth 6.6 wins (2013) and 5 wins (2014) on offense alone over the past two years. In terms of offensive runs above average (i.e., ignoring the positional adjustment), he ranks 14th amongst hitters over the last two years, just below guys like Puig and Holliday and ahead of guys like Beltre and Upton and Ortiz.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 17:51:06 GMT -5
and in addition to losing two top-40-ish prospects, you'd be absolutely GUTTING the system of position players. They're thin enough in that respect right now, but even though I think I get where you're coming from with trading Devers (PT issue with Chavis), you'd have a 2-3 level gap, depending where Chavis gets assigned without any elite position player prospects. Rijo and Guerra are nice, but nyahhhhhh. It's really just losing Margot though, right? That gap would suck, but as you mentioned in another thread, there's a gap there already. The difference between having one good position player prospect in Portland/Salem next year and having no good position player prospects there shouldn't be that big of a deal, or at least that's my line of thought.
|
|
|