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.
2014-15 Offseason Non-Sox thread
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 17, 2014 11:52:18 GMT -5
As the Giants bid the same for Sandoval as the Sox, why didn't they top Headley's AAV? Headley could be undervalued, but the teams that were bidding on 3B do not seem to think so. Perhaps they are all irrational - or perhaps there is something else that we are missing? This is true with every free agent signing or trade, though, and there's no point in having a forum if we're just going to defer to the team(s) every single time. I've presented why I think teams that undervalued Headley are wrong and am happy to hear what you think I am missing. No. That is both a cop out and a strawman. You have taken what I said to an extreme. It is not true that every player could have been signed by someone else for more, therefore that player must not be worth that much. Rather, here is what we know: the Padres, the Giants, and the Red Sox all bid on Pablo Sandoval to the tune of roughly 5/95. Yet, none of those three teams (and especially not the two teams that did not sign him) are reported to have offered Chase Headley (a player you think is close to equal, or maybe superior, but in all events worth more than the difference b/w the two) a deal worth anything close to that. You have to form a narrative to make sense of that (and arguing team irrationality may be your answer, I just think you should have to have one in order to make sense of this). I think there is a combination of these factors in some degree: (1) The Red Sox do not trust public defensive metrics, and that they instead rely on differently derived defensive metrics that indicate that there is less of a difference b/w the two. Fangraphs thinks that there is roughly 6 runs difference defensively. That could be overstated by those with better information. (2) I think that the offensive difference b/w the two is significant – Steamer suggests roughly 8 runs (15 vs. 7, after you back out base running, which I don’t have a ton of faith in [too synergistic with factors outside of the runner’s control]), and that may be understating it. If you just assume the 8 run difference, and a wash defensively, then Sandoval is worth nearly a run more, which means the 6 mm in AAV is clearly worthwhile. I have much greater trust in the offensive projections than I do the defensive ones. (3) I don’t see a reason to think that Headley was negotiating outside of the Yankees. You know, some people actually like it there. (Proximity the great knishes, I assume.) Additionally, the Red Sox could have determined that they don’t think Headley would work well at Fenway. I kind of hate the hit map overlays, so I think that is a stupid way to look at it, but may (4) Headley could very well be replacement level at the end of his contract – if we assume a 0.5 WAR decline for post 31 players (the rough aging curve Tango usually uses for q&d math), and we assume Headley is a 2.5ish win player (basically, back out his defensive value), he could be worth somewhere on the order 0-1 wins at contract end. Sandoval, meanwhile, shouldn’t see significant age related decline until the end of the contract, so whatever WAR project we have for him is likely to stay stabl-ish for the next few years. So, you could add up these as follows: Sandoval Age (at 9/1 in season)/ WAR 29 / 3.5 30 / 3.5 31 / 3.5 32 / 3.0 33 / 2.5 =16 WAR for $95 ($5.9/WAR) Headley 31 / 3.0 32 / 2.5 33 / 2 34 / 1.5 = 9 WAR for $52mm (5.7/WAR) If you think that Sandoval is more than a ½ win better than Headley now (and point 1 above would militate towards that), obviously it’s a better deal. Anyway, with very minor tweaks to your narrative, I’m pretty sure it is pretty reasonable to think that Sandoval is the better contract/player. And I think that aligns better with how the teams actually treated them. Since I start assuming team rationality, I’d want to know why that assumption is wrong rather than have me need to show you why it is right.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 17, 2014 11:52:49 GMT -5
I'm quite excited for when the Red Sox trade for Wil Myers after the 2017 season after three "disappointing" years in Petco that were actually pretty darn good but people still don't understand park effects.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 17, 2014 11:59:05 GMT -5
I seriously don't believe that signing Panda over Headley had any effect on their bid for Lester or what they'd be willing to pay Scherzer. Also I don't see where a 4-5 million dollar player is going to change anything since our roster is already pretty crowded with "good role players". I'm not a proponent of all star at every position but there comes a point where a team should balance their minimum wage guys with players that are likely to meet their costs in terms of production as opposed to being good buys.
Headley is a fine player, I don't disagree with that but Pablo mashes against lefties righties which was a Sox weakness. He's a better fit.
ADD: For reference career OPS/wOBA batting L vs R
left .853/.363 right .708/.309
That kept us from needing to trade for a Cargo/Heyward
Other factors. The split leaves a crack for WMB to be useful and also since Headley's forte is more defense than Pablo, there's also a crack for 2016 to see him switch to first and have Xander slide over to third that wouldn't exist with Headley.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Dec 17, 2014 12:26:09 GMT -5
Rather, here is what we know: the Padres, the Giants, and the Red Sox all bid on Pablo Sandoval to the tune of roughly 5/95. Yet, none of those three teams (and especially not the two teams that did not sign him) are reported to have offered Chase Headley (a player you think is close to equal, or maybe superior, but in all events worth more than the difference b/w the two) a deal worth anything close to that. Trimmed the quote cause I didn't want to clog the thread. Good point on that. Especially on the Padres. They had the guy in their system for 9.5 seasons but weren't willing to open the checkbook at all to bring him back. But they were willing to offer Sandoval over $100 million? I'm not a huge fan of Sandoval or his contract. But that does make you wonder why there was a consensus that Sandoval was the much better player and worth much more.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 17, 2014 12:52:34 GMT -5
Headley signed a contract with a $13m AAV, while Sandoval signed one for a $19m AAV. But even if we assume that it would have taken a $15m AAV for Boston to sign Headley, then yeah, I'd still prefer Headley, $4m a year to spend, and a draft pick to Sandoval at $19m. Seen reports that Headley turned down bigger offers to sign with Yankees. So not sure 2 million more a year gets it done. What if you had to pay 17 million a year? or go to 5 years? I like Headley because he plays good D and gets on base. Now he is going to be 31 and a ton of his value comes from his D. As he ages his value might drop very fast if his D becomes average. Now I worry about the last few year of Sandovals deal and his D, but with his bat you could always move him to first and/or DH. With Headley bat you can't play him at first or DH in a few years.
I'm glad the Sox went after and signed the younger 3b with a better bat. In the non steroid area hitting is becoming more scarce my friend. Now about the draft pick, Ramirez signing and our first pick protected, Pablo cost us a 3rd rounder. If we sign Shields, it could be a 4th rounder. We still have our first round pick and Oakland's comp pick and a loaded system. No problem with losing the pick, not something they should do every year, but its not going to destroy the system either.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2014 13:19:59 GMT -5
There are rumblings that the Kemp trade might be in danger based on his physical. They have until tomorrow to finalize it. The Rollins trade is dependent on it as well.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 17, 2014 13:35:07 GMT -5
As the Giants bid the same for Sandoval as the Sox, why didn't they top Headley's AAV? Headley could be undervalued, but the teams that were bidding on 3B do not seem to think so. Perhaps they are all irrational - or perhaps there is something else that we are missing? This is true with every free agent signing or trade, though, and there's no point in having a forum if we're just going to defer to the team(s) every single time. I've presented why I think teams that undervalued Headley are wrong and am happy to hear what you think I am missing. Why would the Sox even want Headley's batting value when they already have that in Craig (even if the 2012 Headley curious jump when San Diego was linked to their player(s) on steroids). Seems to me looking between the lines Panda was our shot at quality 3rd baseman + having bench bats to back up outfield and infield in our own players. Apparently there was No player to add 4M salary to for upgrade quality that they say. Relieve pitchers and their possible blow ups aren't the answer right now with adding 4M there isn't even a value added. The SP option would be over Masterson and the only close value upgrade their would of been Santana and his 4/55 at 32 to 35 isn't worth it either as that value needs the age regression also. We have no idea if Panda or Headley's defensive value can be added or subtracted at this point. I think this argument is UN-winnable for either side and the Sox did what they thought was the best gamble going forward for a high dollar franchise that needed butts in "their" seats.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 17, 2014 13:45:34 GMT -5
The point of value is not value for value's sake. The point of value is that you can use the money you save to pick up another piece which, when combined with your value sign, produces more wins that the more expensive guy does on his own. In other words, for $19m a year, you get more wins from Headley + [insert $5-6m player here] than you would from just Sandoval, which is why I think they should have signed (or at least more seriously pursued) Headley instead. Ehh. We will have to agree to disagree. I'm of the opinion that Headley + option is extremely limited. Option for 3-4M is a 6th inning/spot starter ML pitcher; ie. not that many wins. I'm more inclined to believe in wins/position which means that you maximize wins where you can. Sometimes that means value signings while other times it means concentrating in fewer positions when your options allow. I don't think there are many places on the roster where an additional player at 3-4M will add value. And, I don't like using the flawed logic of taking that extra money and adding AAV to a contract (Lester) because the Sox clearly set values on each player regardless of other players.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 17, 2014 14:55:52 GMT -5
This is true with every free agent signing or trade, though, and there's no point in having a forum if we're just going to defer to the team(s) every single time. I've presented why I think teams that undervalued Headley are wrong and am happy to hear what you think I am missing. No. That is both a cop out and a strawman. You have taken what I said to an extreme. It is not true that every player could have been signed by someone else for more, therefore that player must not be worth that much. Rather, here is what we know: the Padres, the Giants, and the Red Sox all bid on Pablo Sandoval to the tune of roughly 5/95. Yet, none of those three teams (and especially not the two teams that did not sign him) are reported to have offered Chase Headley (a player you think is close to equal, or maybe superior, but in all events worth more than the difference b/w the two) a deal worth anything close to that. You have to form a narrative to make sense of that (and arguing team irrationality may be your answer, I just think you should have to have one in order to make sense of this). I think there is a combination of these factors in some degree: (1) The Red Sox do not trust public defensive metrics, and that they instead rely on differently derived defensive metrics that indicate that there is less of a difference b/w the two. Fangraphs thinks that there is roughly 6 runs difference defensively. That could be overstated by those with better information. It's really hard to avoid that conclusion by now ... by definition, when teams don't seem to give nearly as much weight to players as publicly available numbers would indicate, it's a good sign that those numbers just don't have credibility with those teams. In the past, you could credibly argue that the vast majority of teams were in thrall of some outdated and misleading concepts and that the numbers were good (OBP, baby!). But now, you really can't assume that of the Red Sox, Cubs, Rays, A's, etc, etc, so when their behavior differs from the logical conclusion of the publicly available numbers, you really gotta start questioning those numbers.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 17, 2014 16:50:14 GMT -5
In the interest of not derailing this thread further, I'll respond to the above re: Headley/Sandoval in this thread when I have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 17, 2014 18:08:57 GMT -5
Jim Bowden ?@jimbowden_ESPN 9 min. Trade: WSH gets Joe Ross PTNL (Turner): SD gets Myers, Castillo, Hanigan & Gerardo Reyes; TB gets Burch, Smith, Ott, Bauers, Rivera,Souza
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2014 18:31:16 GMT -5
San Diego is crazy. Washington wins.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 17, 2014 18:36:01 GMT -5
San Diego is crazy. Washington wins. Agreed I'd rank it 1. Nationals 2. Rays 3. Padres Edit: Also pretty crazy situation for Trea Turner. He is a PTBNL, since he was drafted last year and is thus ineligible to be traded now. He knows he'll join another organization in June. Makes you wonder how much time the Padres are going to invest in him this year.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 17, 2014 18:40:40 GMT -5
Have people's opinions of Myers fallen off that much already? Two years ago the whole internet went bonkers that the Royals dared to trade him for James Shields and Wade Davis, but now trading Trea Turner and Ren Rivera for him is no good? What am I missing here?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,858
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 17, 2014 18:45:17 GMT -5
Yeah not a big Trea Turner guy here. Think Wil Myers will rebound just fine. Since SD has Hedges, I like that they sold high on Rivera. Fine trade for them IMO.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 17, 2014 18:45:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 17, 2014 19:03:47 GMT -5
A side effect of the trade. When Cespedes was being shopped, the Nationals were said to be interested because they thought they could get a good return for Werth. Now with no Cespedes and no Souza, Werth is pretty much staying put.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 17, 2014 19:10:35 GMT -5
So I get this for Washington. And I definitely get acquiring Myers for SD. Who's going to explain why this makes sense for TB?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 17, 2014 19:23:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 17, 2014 19:30:38 GMT -5
So I get this for Washington. And I definitely get acquiring Myers for SD. Who's going to explain why this makes sense for TB? If they don't think Myers has that kind of upside that we thought, then the downgrade to Souza (who I think is solid) is worth it to pick up those other parts. Honestly though, there are a lot of moving parts here and it's going to take me a day or two to figure out where I stand on it.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Dec 17, 2014 19:55:48 GMT -5
I read a tweet today from J.J. Cooper that said Turner can't be traded until June 13. I thought any PTBNL has to be given withing 6 months. Are they just going to have to wait until mid January to announce this trade?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 17, 2014 20:43:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Dec 17, 2014 21:29:47 GMT -5
January, February, March, Spring Training, April, May, June, July.... See? Still have to wait a month....
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 17, 2014 21:48:24 GMT -5
So I get this for Washington. And I definitely get acquiring Myers for SD. Who's going to explain why this makes sense for TB? Steven Souza could be a real sleeper, he has insane potential. I'm not familiar with (or don't remember) the other dudes.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,858
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 17, 2014 21:59:17 GMT -5
Guys like Souza bust more often than not though. Big frame, great production, but old for their level. Risky.
This trade looks pretty damn bad for TB IMO. If this is what they think Meyers is worth, they must not see much in him.
|
|
|