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.
The Red Sox trade deadline deals were awful/awesome/meh
|
Post by jclmontana on Oct 23, 2014 12:02:07 GMT -5
Most of the time, legitimate evaluation of a trade has to be made within the context of the timeframe and circumstances in which the trade was made (or not made). Hindsight doesn't really have much use if you are looking at whether the FO made a good or bad decision at the time of the trade. Lack of information also makes it difficult to fully evaluate a trade; we will probably never know who really was or was not on the table as alternatives to Cespedes/pick and Kelly/Craig--although Ben himself said that there were "attractive" prospect packages as alternatives to at least the Lester trade.
But both the Lester and Lackey trades are a bit different in that the Sox chose players who overfilled the roster at certain positions (back of the rotation-SP and OF), so the trades are difficult to fully evaluate simply in the context of the 2014 trade deadline. There are other shoes to drop, so to speak. Almost as if the trades were the first part of a three way trade or roster moves that unfold very, very slowly.
Two points, really: 1) The Lackey and Lester trades were and are defensible in the context of the time and circumstances under which they were completed. You might not like the logic or the way the front office was thinking, but that doesn't mean the trades were stupid or indefensible, it simply means you did not like them or wished the front office went in a different direction. I won't go into why, because the 30 plus pages between the two trade threads pretty much exhausted the discussion.
2.) the second act of those two trades has yet to unfold. Much of the discussion about the ultimate outcome, value, and logic of the trades is worthless without knowing what will happen. In other words, this thread will probably become pertinent in the next few months, but definitely by trade deadline 2015.
For the record, I liked the trades. I think they were calculated risks with potentially big payoffs. That said, I reserve the right to hate the outcome of the trades. While that may seem two-faced, it isn't. Two faced would be changing my tune later and saying I hated the trades. Not liking the outcome of what I think is a good choice is something else.
The other two trades were good/great. And they will continue to be good/great trades even if Rodriguez blows out his elbow or washes out at AAA and Hembree/Escobar fade into non-prospect obscurity.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 23, 2014 12:04:26 GMT -5
I liked all the deals when they were made, and I still do. However, their true value won't be known for a while.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Oct 23, 2014 12:56:28 GMT -5
I think the Cespedes/Lester and Craig+Kelly/Lackey trades are about philosophy perspective. The problem again is that we don't know if that's what was offered up to the Sox. I have to imagine there were prospects packages. The question is how good were those prospects packages? Without knowing this all we can do is deal in hypotheticals and philosophical I think you have it exactly right. We do not know the details and so can't judge the execution of the strategy. We can only judge the strategy. That was my problem with the Lester trade. It seems that management did not look at the offers neutraly. Instead they determined to place greater weight on immediate impact for 2015. (I also suspect that the non-performance of our own prospects may have further devalued the prospect offers.) I therefore have an issue with the initial weighting of the offers, a criticism that seems to be more valid when they no want to trade Cespedes because he either doesn't give them long-term value or the value he has is not that high. Read more: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/1859/2014-15-offseason-discussion?page=52#ixzz3GzVIydJRFor the sake of disclosure, I would have traded Lester to KC in 2012 for Myers. That non-trade shows that the near-term results can be quite valuable.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 23, 2014 14:13:36 GMT -5
In other words, just enough to generate that 1 win. Unless of course he busts out. 1 win only with a lot of improvement. Below replacement if not.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 23, 2014 14:40:27 GMT -5
The trades were a blend of veterans (Cespedes, Craig, Kelly) and prospects (Escobar, Rodriguez, Hembree, Oakland draft pick). I feel we have players who can be of value now and prospects who can help the team down the line. Oakland, SF and Baltimore, I am sure, are happy with the return.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Oct 23, 2014 15:07:59 GMT -5
When the Lackey trade went down I was sitting with a friend listening as the news came in. At first it was reported that they got a major league outfielder and a pitcher. At that point I said, "Please not Joe Kelly and Allen Craig."
I was hoping for Shelby Miller or Carlos Martinez, but I've never been sold Kelly can be more than a fringy starter. He just hadn't missed enough bats in his career.
Craig is a major question mark as has been mentioned. He could bounce back, but I'm not confident he will. My biggest issue with taking on Craig is that you have to build the roster this off season specifically to accommodate the fact that he might not bring anything to the table next year, but he needs the at bats to show it. That is a tough spot to be in. And if he doesn't bounce back right away, the team is forced to carry a liability or dump him at negative value.
We'll never know what the other offers were, but with the extra year of control and the market conditions what they were, I'm disappointed at the return.
(Though as I've mentioned, I'm hopeful that Craig proves me wrong and Kelly learns to harness his better-than-I-expected stuff.)
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 23, 2014 16:44:19 GMT -5
I see all the deadline trades as being meh, except the Miller trade that was obviously awesome. However, I think that we can't fully evalue those trades without knowing what BC will do this offseason, as we all know that these trades were made eyeing 2015 and we don't know how the 2015 roster will look like.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 23, 2014 17:41:25 GMT -5
Let's assume for a second that Bell was on the table. Bell is a very good prospect and the Red Sox don't really have anyone like him in their system. However he's not a flawless prospect and still has a lot of work to do especially from the right side of the plate. Cespedes, at the very least will give the team certain major league value. You can't say that about Bell. I wouldn't be surpised if Bell never gives as much major league value as Cespedes will. True, you don't know what value Bell would give the team. Honestly you can't say that about any prospect so if that's the case then why ever trade for a prospect? To me it's less the crapshoot and more the team's valuation of him. The team doesn't look at him as "is lacking in this area and may or may not develop there," but rather a lot more extensive evaluation like "is lacking in this area, and we think it isn't likely he will develop there because of X, Y, and Z as scouted over extensive viewings as an amateur and as a minor leaguer, although there is a slight chance he may develop." Not saying the evaluation is definitely bad, but remember, major league teams aren't scouting guys based on stats and the BA handbook. They see these guys over years and evaluate their progressions. Even saying, for the sake of argument, that Bell was on the table, it's entirely possible they don't like him as a prospect. And that's different than how someone like us who doesn't see him over and over again over years would "not like" him as a prospect.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Oct 23, 2014 18:02:18 GMT -5
Most of the time, legitimate evaluation of a trade has to be made within the context of the timeframe and circumstances in which the trade was made (or not made). Hindsight doesn't really have much use if you are looking at whether the FO made a good or bad decision at the time of the trade. True in general, but in this case, my and others' reaction to the Lackey trade was: the numbers say it's a bad trade, they must have some insight from a scouting or medical standpoint to tell them that Kelly/Craig are going to be better than the numbers would make you believe. Since I'm not privy to Craig's medical information and can't scout, the only way for me to tell whether the FO was right about these things is by using hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by rasimon on Oct 24, 2014 1:20:02 GMT -5
Lester + Gomes -> Cespedes + A's CB pick Objectively: if they had let the Lester run his contract out, make a QO to him, and he walked then we would have gotten 1 comp pick. Assuming Cespedes walks after next year then we get 1 year of Cespedes + QO pick + A's CB pick. I would expect Cespedes to put up a fWAR of around 3 next year for $10.5MM. So he is a good value for 1 year. Subjectively: I am not a big Cespedes fan. I would have preferred the package the Cubs got for Shark...and yes Lester is a better pitcher. But I guess it depends on what we get with the two picks. FINAL GRADE: B-/C+
Lackey + Littrell + $1.75MM -> Craig + Kelly very surprised we could not get more considering Lackey has been good for 2 years and he is nearly no cost for next year. Even if Craig gets back to where he was he's not that great a player. He's a bad base-runner, and a bad fielder, already on the left end of the spectrum. Prior to 2014 he hit enough to be an ok overall player. fWAR=2.5 for $9.3MM per year which is a good $/WAR but still not that great a player. We already have a few guys who can probably do that at lower cost. And that is assuming he gets back to where he was. If he does not get back then its a waste of $28MM. This deal comes down to how good you think Kelly will be. Right now he is a back of the rotation starter. If you think Kelly can step it up a bit and become a #3 and Craig is not toast then this could turn into an ok deal. FINAL GRADE: C
Miller -> Rodriguez 2 meaningless months of Miller gets us a potential mid rotation starter...the Os are not going to QO Miller so there is the possibility that the Sox could even get Miller back. FINAL GRADE: A+
Peavy -> Escobar + Hembree Peavy was just taking up space with the Sox and we were not going to make a QO to him. In return we got two prospects with some upside. It was a bit frustrating to see Peavy pitch well with SF. WHIP down significantly although K/9 was still not great. Even so we gave up 2 meaningless months and got something in return. I doubt we could have gotten much more. FINAL GRADE: B+
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 24, 2014 7:31:51 GMT -5
Craig is a major question mark as has been mentioned. He could bounce back, but I'm not confident he will. My biggest issue with taking on Craig is that you have to build the roster this off season specifically to accommodate the fact that he might not bring anything to the table next year, but he needs the at bats to show it. That is a tough spot to be in. And if he doesn't bounce back right away, the team is forced to carry a liability or dump him at negative value. Exactly my issue. It's similar to Sizemore, except he's not as necessary to the team and he has a much bigger commitment. But still, we can't really afford wasted roster spots and being put in a position where they might have to just cut him and eat $20 million. I mean he was worth -0.8 games for us last season in 29 games and -1.4 total. If he's at a similar point after his first 29 games next season, then what? Still wait on him and hope he can turn it around and continue letting him contribute at less than replacement value? How long? And play him in front of Victorino or Betts?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 24, 2014 9:28:36 GMT -5
Lester + Gomes -> Cespedes + A's CB pick Objectively: if they had let the Lester run his contract out, make a QO to him, and he walked then we would have gotten 1 comp pick. Assuming Cespedes walks after next year then we get 1 year of Cespedes + QO pick + A's CB pick. I would expect Cespedes to put up a fWAR of around 3 next year for $10.5MM. So he is a good value for 1 year. Subjectively: I am not a big Cespedes fan. I would have preferred the package the Cubs got for Shark...and yes Lester is a better pitcher. But I guess it depends on what we get with the two picks. FINAL GRADE: B-/C+ You might want to revise that grade slightly. The Red Sox do not get a QO pick if/when Cespedes walks. It's built into his contract that he doesn't get a QO. That's why the Sox went and got the A's CB pick in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 24, 2014 11:30:20 GMT -5
well 25% is just stupid in my opinion Stupid because....? Would you be happier with 33.46%? I think it's more likely that Craig is declining with age and injuries and won't be the same hitter he was most of the time in St. Louis. You obviously think he'll snap right back. I figure either he snaps back and hits near .280 - .300 with .450ish SA and a decent OBP or he hits near .250 with a mediocre OBP and mediocre SA or he hits somewhere near as bad as he was in 2014 (I don't mean his .130 BA with the Sox) and his other numbers are awful. All of these choices come with mediocre defense. Maybe because he doesn't have a career ending injury but his lisfranic injury hurt him enough so he couldn't work out in the offseason? Or maybe because hes only 30 years old, and was one of the best hitters in baseball a year ago? You suggesting 25% chance of bounce back shows you shouldnt be taken seriously
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 24, 2014 12:39:35 GMT -5
Stupid because....? Would you be happier with 33.46%? I think it's more likely that Craig is declining with age and injuries and won't be the same hitter he was most of the time in St. Louis. You obviously think he'll snap right back. I figure either he snaps back and hits near .280 - .300 with .450ish SA and a decent OBP or he hits near .250 with a mediocre OBP and mediocre SA or he hits somewhere near as bad as he was in 2014 (I don't mean his .130 BA with the Sox) and his other numbers are awful. All of these choices come with mediocre defense. Maybe because he doesn't have a career ending injury but his lisfranic injury hurt him enough so he couldn't work out in the offseason? Or maybe because hes only 30 years old, and was one of the best hitters in baseball a year ago? You suggesting 25% chance of bounce back shows you shouldnt be taken seriously Because I disagree with your assessments and think it's much more likely Craig is cooked than bouncing back so that means I "shouldn't be taken seriously"? I'm glad you have little doubt he'll shake off the after-affects of his lisfranc injury and be the hitter he was a couple of years ago and prior - and I hope you're right because it makes the dealing of Cespedes that much easier. Excuse me if I'm more skeptical. Excuse me if I think his BABIP fueled some of his prior success, and that I think it's possible that he can't handle the hard stuff like he once did. If you're right then Craig better get off to a blazing start because with all the outfielders they have (and this assumes a deal or two) he might not get that many ABs to re-prove himself. And if he bounces back, I hope it's all the way because if it's only partway as I suspect then the Sox will get some mediocre defense for their troubles. Rest easy. I won't take you too seriously after all I do laugh at your "We're the Red Sox (and all those other poor saps of teams aren't). We MUST win every single year or else" WAAAH rants.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 24, 2014 12:46:44 GMT -5
Craig is a major question mark as has been mentioned. He could bounce back, but I'm not confident he will. My biggest issue with taking on Craig is that you have to build the roster this off season specifically to accommodate the fact that he might not bring anything to the table next year, but he needs the at bats to show it. That is a tough spot to be in. And if he doesn't bounce back right away, the team is forced to carry a liability or dump him at negative value. Exactly my issue. It's similar to Sizemore, except he's not as necessary to the team and he has a much bigger commitment. But still, we can't really afford wasted roster spots and being put in a position where they might have to just cut him and eat $20 million. I mean he was worth -0.8 games for us last season in 29 games and -1.4 total. If he's at a similar point after his first 29 games next season, then what? Still wait on him and hope he can turn it around and continue letting him contribute at less than replacement value? How long? And play him in front of Victorino or Betts? So what you're saying is, the Red Sox should never take a flier on a player. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 25, 2014 12:20:23 GMT -5
Exactly my issue. It's similar to Sizemore, except he's not as necessary to the team and he has a much bigger commitment. But still, we can't really afford wasted roster spots and being put in a position where they might have to just cut him and eat $20 million. I mean he was worth -0.8 games for us last season in 29 games and -1.4 total. If he's at a similar point after his first 29 games next season, then what? Still wait on him and hope he can turn it around and continue letting him contribute at less than replacement value? How long? And play him in front of Victorino or Betts? So what you're saying is, the Red Sox should never take a flier on a player. Is that correct? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have better options in front of him.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Oct 27, 2014 11:44:50 GMT -5
Maybe because he doesn't have a career ending injury but his lisfranic injury hurt him enough so he couldn't work out in the offseason? Or maybe because hes only 30 years old, and was one of the best hitters in baseball a year ago? You suggesting 25% chance of bounce back shows you shouldnt be taken seriously I'm going to take a different approach to the "Craig in 2015" debate. The basics: K% up a lot in 2014. BB% similar to past. BABIP way down. SLG way down. LD% reasonable. GB% way up. FB% down. IF hit% way up. Much higher percentage of fastballs in 2014. Much higher percentage of 2 seam fastballs in 2014. O-swing and O-contact way down. Pre-2014 had a fantastic line vs. RHP. There's some interesting things here: 1. Nobody has a reverse split over their career. 2. Power is down which influences BABIP a lot. 3. Higher % of fastballs and lower outside of the zone pitch frequency coupled with worse results outside of the zone could mean that pichers were pounding the zone with fastballs that he couldn't square up on and were throwing more offspeed pitches outside of the zone that he missed more of. In conclusion: I don't know if a foot injury had any real effect on his 2014. You could make the argument that he wasn't able to strength train properly in the 2013 offseason which made him struggle with power and rotational velocity. Or, you could say that pitchers figured out he couldn't hit fastballs in the zone well and made that adjustment against him. However, I find it difficult to believe that he has a true talent reverse split; meaning that he crashed to earth this past season as he should have. Given an entire offseason to strength train properly should see improvement in his lagging peripherals meaning that we'll see a vastly improved line from 2014. However, I think it's reasonable to assume that he will not see his numbers vs. RHPs improve to pre-2014 levels.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 27, 2014 11:50:45 GMT -5
So what you're saying is, the Red Sox should never take a flier on a player. Is that correct? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have better options in front of him. And what I'm saying is, if Craig doesn't fit the bill of the perfect turn-around candidate, who does? I don't think his injury was enough to destroy his career, but I can buy into the fact that it cost him a lot in 2014. Then again, maybe I'm buying in because I want to buy into Craig?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 27, 2014 12:48:43 GMT -5
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have better options in front of him. And what I'm saying is, if Craig doesn't fit the bill of the perfect turn-around candidate, who does? I don't think his injury was enough to destroy his career, but I can buy into the fact that it cost him a lot in 2014. Then again, maybe I'm buying in because I want to buy into Craig? Victorino?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 27, 2014 13:23:01 GMT -5
And what I'm saying is, if Craig doesn't fit the bill of the perfect turn-around candidate, who does? I don't think his injury was enough to destroy his career, but I can buy into the fact that it cost him a lot in 2014. Then again, maybe I'm buying in because I want to buy into Craig? Victorino? I don't see Victorino needing to turn it around so much as continuing down the path he was on, but without the stagger from the back pain. I do hope the team plans for his playing time more thoughtfully than they did last year. That didn't work out so well. Coming to you from the great northwest
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 27, 2014 14:29:32 GMT -5
I don't see Victorino needing to turn it around so much as continuing down the path he was on, but without the stagger from the back pain. I do hope the team plans for his playing time more thoughtfully than they did last year. That didn't work out so well. Coming to you from the great northwest I meant turning his WAR around through increased playing time. If Mookie is in the majors, we have Castillo and Mookie ahead of Victorino already. Plus Craig, Cespedes, Nava, Holt are all available to this point. I think it's Victorino who is actually in the Gomes role this year, except he's way more versatile.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 27, 2014 14:58:28 GMT -5
I don't see Victorino needing to turn it around so much as continuing down the path he was on, but without the stagger from the back pain. I do hope the team plans for his playing time more thoughtfully than they did last year. That didn't work out so well. Coming to you from the great northwest I meant turning his WAR around through increased playing time. If Mookie is in the majors, we have Castillo and Mookie ahead of Victorino already. Plus Craig, Cespedes, Nava, Holt are all available to this point. I think it's Victorino who is actually in the Gomes role this year, except he's way more versatile. I think that's a possibility. The only problem is that Mookie, Castillio, Craig and Cespedes are all right handed. Victorino wouldn't platoon with them. At this point in his career, he might be better off as a fourth outfielder playing a 2 - 3 times a week.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 27, 2014 14:59:30 GMT -5
I meant turning his WAR around through increased playing time. If Mookie is in the majors, we have Castillo and Mookie ahead of Victorino already. Plus Craig, Cespedes, Nava, Holt are all available to this point. I think it's Victorino who is actually in the Gomes role this year, except he's way more versatile. I think that's a possibility. The only problem is that Mookie, Castillio, Craig and Cespedes are all right handed. Victorino wouldn't platoon with them. At this point in his career, he might be better off as a fourth outfielder playing a 2 - 3 times a week. That's pretty much what Gomes did (or should have done), by only facing LHP.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 27, 2014 15:06:28 GMT -5
Craig is a major question mark as has been mentioned. He could bounce back, but I'm not confident he will. My biggest issue with taking on Craig is that you have to build the roster this off season specifically to accommodate the fact that he might not bring anything to the table next year, but he needs the at bats to show it. That is a tough spot to be in. And if he doesn't bounce back right away, the team is forced to carry a liability or dump him at negative value. Exactly my issue. It's similar to Sizemore, except he's not as necessary to the team and he has a much bigger commitment. But still, we can't really afford wasted roster spots and being put in a position where they might have to just cut him and eat $20 million. I mean he was worth -0.8 games for us last season in 29 games and -1.4 total. If he's at a similar point after his first 29 games next season, then what? Still wait on him and hope he can turn it around and continue letting him contribute at less than replacement value? How long? And play him in front of Victorino or Betts? I am sorry but how exactly is Craig similar to Sizemore? Sizemore had a serious knee injury and hadn't had a 500 PA season in five years. Craig had one bad year likely caused by the lack of an off season conditioning program. The Red Sox DO NOT have better options in front of them. You seem to be using his performance a year ago as a baseline assumption for his performance in 2015. That's faulty. What if he performs badly over 29 games? What if any player performs badly over 29 games? Just as with any player you assess their health and the current ability that they are showing on the field and adjust accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 27, 2014 15:16:31 GMT -5
Exactly my issue. It's similar to Sizemore, except he's not as necessary to the team and he has a much bigger commitment. But still, we can't really afford wasted roster spots and being put in a position where they might have to just cut him and eat $20 million. I mean he was worth -0.8 games for us last season in 29 games and -1.4 total. If he's at a similar point after his first 29 games next season, then what? Still wait on him and hope he can turn it around and continue letting him contribute at less than replacement value? How long? And play him in front of Victorino or Betts? I am sorry but how exactly is Craig similar to Sizemore? Sizemore had a serious knee injury and hadn't had a 500 PA season in five years. Craig had one bad year likely caused by the lack of an off season conditioning program. The Red Sox DO NOT have better options in front of them. You seem to be using his performance a year ago as a baseline assumption for his performance in 2015. That's faulty. What if he performs badly over 29 games? What if any player performs badly over 29 games? Just as with any player you assess their health and the current ability that they are showing on the field and adjust accordingly. Craig and Sizemore are similar in that we don't want to count on them. They are more likely to flop because they weren't even replacement level last year. Or for Sizemore, several years. Someone like Victorino is way more likely to be above replacement if only for his defense. I don't want Victorino starting, but I also don't want him getting less time than Craig. I'm assuming that Castillo and Betts are starting every day in CF/RF and that Cespedes is getting traded. That makes a pretty simple platoon of Victorino/Nava in LF with Holt and Victorino able to cover for rest/injuries with Betts/Castillo. I'm actually higher on JBJ than Craig too, but he'll be in the minors.
|
|
|