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.
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 16, 2014 19:10:48 GMT -5
I'd like to know about the chasm between Xander's and Betts' Steamer projections. How can two infielders both having the same age, the same mL profiles, and similar defensive profiles (-0.2 vs .06), be valued so differently? Why is Betts at 4.4 and Xander half that? Is it all from Betts 200 PA's?
If so, that's just wrong.
Also, if Zimmerman comes he comes with a Hamels type extension (4-5/90-115), or not at all. My thoughts: Zimmerman, Desmond, and, I guess, Cole, for Xander and Coyle. WAS has plenty of starters, losing Zim won't kill them. Xander takes over next year and thereafter. Coyle could be their 2nd baseman out of ST.
Trade hinges on Zimmermann's willingness to sign and BC's thoughts on Desmond's signability or Marrero in '16
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 16, 2014 19:35:31 GMT -5
I'd like to know about the chasm between Xander's and Betts' Steamer projections. How can two infielders both having the same age, the same mL profiles, and similar defensive profiles (-0.2 vs .06), be valued so differently? Why is Betts at 4.4 and Xander half that? Is it all from Betts 200 PA's? If so, that's just wrong. The fact that one player had an excellent 115 PAs and the other had a pretty bad 558 PAs at the major league level matters a lot to a projection system, and frankly I think it should. There's also the fact that Betts has been much better in the high minors than Bogaerts has statistically (.335/.417/.503 in AAA for Betts, .284/.369/.453 in AAA for Bogaerts, with a similar gap in career AA performance as well), and projection systems (again, rightly) weigh more recent performance in the high minors more than more distant performance in the low minors.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 16, 2014 20:10:12 GMT -5
Well, it shouldn't. 200-558 PA's is too small a sample, especially for 21 year old kids. Same goes for their 200~ Pa in AAA - meaningless. Truth is their mL profiles are about as exact as can be.
Either Steamer's trashing Xander or it's too excited about Betts 200 PA. Neither make sense.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 16, 2014 20:49:13 GMT -5
It's a small enough sample that the error bars are huge, sure, but projections for 22-year-olds inevitably involve small sample gymnastics, and the alternative is to regress it so much as to be meaningless, which I think would only be worse.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Nationals
Dec 16, 2014 22:49:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Dec 16, 2014 22:49:24 GMT -5
Bogaerts would be an overpay for Strasburg, let alone Zimmermann.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Dec 17, 2014 15:25:57 GMT -5
Well, it shouldn't. 200-558 PA's is too small a sample, especially for 21 year old kids. Same goes for their 200~ Pa in AAA - meaningless. Truth is their mL profiles are about as exact as can be. Either Steamer's trashing Xander or it's too excited about Betts 200 PA. Neither make sense. It's also worth noting that Betts' peripheral stats are much better than Bogaerts' as well. Betts struck out around 8-14% of the time, including in the majors, while Bogaerts was more in the 18-20% range in the minors and 23% in the majors. Their minor league walk profiles are similar, but Betts kept walking in the majors while Bogaerts hardly walked at all. Even 200 PAs is a decent sample size for K and BB%. That's probably the biggest reason why Steamer (and myself) is high on Betts relative to Bogaerts for 2015.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 17, 2014 15:56:08 GMT -5
What is the perceived value on Marrero? I have never seen him play, but have just read about how great defensively he is. I know he hit well in the Fall league this year, but he seems to be a bottom of the order SS. Is he a better prospect than Iglesias was? I ask only because the value placed on him on these discussion boards seems to be greater than the value I have placed on him. I find it hard to believe a Kelly/Marrero can get a Zimmerman. I look at Marrero and see a Vazquez type player. An elite D SS that won't hit a lot. All Marrero has to do is hit .240 to .250 and play good D to become a 2-3 plus rWAR player. I think Marrero is vastly underrated, just like Vazquez was. I was one of the people that underrated Vazquez because his value comes from his D and not his Bat. In baseball catcher and shortstop are the two most important defensive positions, so you can live with a below average bat for well above average D.
When comparing Iglesias to Marrero, I'd say Iglesias was a slightly better defender, while Marrero was slightly better at hitting.
As to the Zimmerman trade; Nats would be getting fair value in a Kelly and Marrero for Zimmerman trade. Unless the Nats trade Ian Desmond not sure why they would want Marrero. I know Desmond is a free agent next year but I just can't see them walking away from him. The Nats are a big market team they just need to pay Desmond.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,323
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on Dec 17, 2014 17:58:30 GMT -5
Now that they traded for Ross, it looks like the Nats will be trading Zimmermann, right?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 17, 2014 18:08:08 GMT -5
I don't think Ross is major-league-ready yet-- he's only had 20 career innings in AA.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2014 18:35:42 GMT -5
Yeah, it wasn't Tyson Ross.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,323
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on Dec 17, 2014 18:54:49 GMT -5
Oh, I thought it was Tyson Ross! Shoud've checked first!
|
|
|
Nationals
Dec 19, 2014 20:55:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by larrycook on Dec 19, 2014 20:55:13 GMT -5
The Padres appear to be keeping kashner and Ross and Kennedy.
So that leaves zimmermann as a potential trade target.
Assuming cherrington will not part with his top prospects for a one year rental, what do you think he would part with for zimmermann?
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 19, 2014 22:13:42 GMT -5
Assuming Zimmermann or Desmond can be extended, He, him and Cole for Xander, Coyle and a B starter.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 19, 2014 22:27:06 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't think it's likely we get one of the "elite" one year guys (Cueto, Zimmermann, or Price). Two of those teams have very serious designs on contending for the World Series this season, and the third (Cincinnati) is likely looking to extend Cueto - and at this point at least probably sees themselves in contention for the NL Central, or one of the Wild Card slots. However, the bigger thing being I just don't believe Cherington will (or should) give up the pieces that those teams would require to make a move for one year of control.
If we end up moving any of our top 10 prospects, I think it's going to be for someone with multiple years of control or a more likely candidate for an extension. I don't see those teams moving any of the "elite" pitchers for a return short of a package built around one of Swihart, Owens, or Rodriguez, and frankly I hope we don't give up any of those guys for one season, even of a great pitcher.
At this point I think the far more likely moves are to either wait for Amaro to come off his ridiculous demands on Hamels, overpay on short years for Shields (less likely), or target another pitcher acquired via trade in that "2-3" range with multiple years of control remaining. This makes me think of names such as Keuchel, Niese, or a starter we aren't even thinking of yet - I mean, how many of us were thinking of Wade Miley before the rumors about our looking toward him started, right.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 21, 2014 19:26:46 GMT -5
Reportedly, Shield's agent is wanting Hamels money. As always, some GM will give it to him. Better not be BC or I'll get physically ill.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Dec 21, 2014 22:24:27 GMT -5
The Red Sox aren't really in on him, nor would I sign him.
|
|
|
Nationals
Dec 21, 2014 23:40:25 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by larrycook on Dec 21, 2014 23:40:25 GMT -5
cafardo of Boston.com says Giants and Red Sox in on shields. Shields likely to get five years 110 million. Maybe Yankees in as well.
The years and numbers seem to go against everything bc has tried to accomplish with the pitching staff this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 22, 2014 0:10:43 GMT -5
Thread's about trading with the Nationals, guys.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Dec 23, 2014 18:03:00 GMT -5
Thread's about trading with the Nationals, guys. An excellent point...
Trying to get it back on track, Washington knows they can't possibly lock up all their potential FAs next year. Just too many guys that are going to be looking for big money, not mention they need to be looking down the road to the inevitable Harper mega-deal. We may have an opening there to get Zimmermann but Mookie would almost certainly have to be involved, which I'd only be OK with if part of the deal was a Zimmermann extension. If they acquire Mookie and Marrero they could have a very capable and dirt-cheap middle infield, then trade Desmond to a team in win-now mode (I think Desmond made a mistake not taking the $100 mil they offered). Given the flurry of activity out of San Diego and the Padres cadre of young pitchers there may be a match there.
Anyway I'm rambling, what it comes down to is would you agree to a trade of Mookie, Marrero, and someone like Rodriguez or Barnes to get Zimmermann (assuming an extension otherwise IMO it's a moot point).
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 23, 2014 18:07:22 GMT -5
Thread's about trading with the Nationals, guys. An excellent point...
Trying to get it back on track, Washington knows they can't possibly lock up all their potential FAs next year. Just too many guys that are going to be looking for big money, not mention they need to be looking down the road to the inevitable Harper mega-deal. We may have an opening there to get Zimmermann but Mookie would almost certainly have to be involved, which I'd only be OK with if part of the deal was a Zimmermann extension. If they acquire Mookie and Marrero they could have a very capable and dirt-cheap middle infield, then trade Desmond to a team in win-now mode (I think Desmond made a mistake not taking the $100 mil they offered). Given the flurry of activity out of San Diego and the Padres cadre of young pitchers there may be a match there.
Anyway I'm rambling, what it comes down to is would you agree to a trade of Mookie, Marrero, and someone like Rodriguez or Barnes to get Zimmermann (assuming an extension otherwise IMO it's a moot point).
Mookie alone is far too valuable to trade for Zimmermann, even with an extension (as the extension won't be cheap). Would have to switch Zimmerman for Strasburg and there may be potential, but the nationals may not want to part with Strasburg unless they have another ace signed up (either Zimmermann extension or Scherzer signing).
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Nationals
Dec 23, 2014 18:26:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Dec 23, 2014 18:26:23 GMT -5
The idea that we would trade Mookie for one year of Zimmermann is comical. Nobody in the Nationals' front office is dumb enough to think they could get someone of Mookie's value for one year of Zimmermann.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 24, 2014 5:15:11 GMT -5
Let's make it clear: if you trade for Zimermann, it is strictly as a rental. The Nats have been trying to sign him to an extension for two or three years now. Every indication is that he wants his FA payday.
That lowers the price for him significantly. No one is bidding to get exclusive rights to extend him, which is what drove the AGon price up to Rizzo, Kelly, and Fuentes. Anyone and everyone who covets him simply has to wait a year.
The Nats are contenders, so any trade for him has to be at least close to a wash for this year.
Meanwhile, we have to consider whether the upgrade from Kelly to Zimmermann would be worth the price. I think that the answer is, only with excess talent. If we could trade Ranaudo (and perhaps another lower-level prospect) for an MLB-ready 2B prospect, I would probably do Kelly, that prospect, and Marrero for Zimmermann (plus the pick he would yield after getting a QO).
For the Nats, Kelly + a real 2B roughly equals Zimmermann + junk 2B, they get two extra years of control over Kelly, and they get a 2016 MLB-ready Marrero to succeed Desmond rather than the draft pick.
However, I would balk if I had better reason to believe that Kelly's stuff was about to translate into more swings and misses.
I think it's unlikely, and I can live with that.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Dec 24, 2014 19:38:48 GMT -5
Let's make it clear: if you trade for Zimermann, it is strictly as a rental. The Nats have been trying to sign him to an extension for two or three years now. Every indication is that he wants his FA payday. That lowers the price for him significantly. No one is bidding to get exclusive rights to extend him, which is what drove the AGon price up to Rizzo, Kelly, and Fuentes. Anyone and everyone who covets him simply has to wait a year. The Nats are contenders, so any trade for him has to be at least close to a wash for this year. Meanwhile, we have to consider whether the upgrade from Kelly to Zimmermann would be worth the price. I think that the answer is, only with excess talent. If we could trade Ranaudo (and perhaps another lower-level prospect) for an MLB-ready 2B prospect, I would probably do Kelly, that prospect, and Marrero for Zimmermann (plus the pick he would yield after getting a QO). For the Nats, Kelly + a real 2B roughly equals Zimmermann + junk 2B, they get two extra years of control over Kelly, and they get a 2016 MLB-ready Marrero to succeed Desmond rather than the draft pick. However, I would balk if I had better reason to believe that Kelly's stuff was about to translate into more swings and misses. I think it's unlikely, and I can live with that. Unfortunately I think you're absolutely right so we won't be seeing him anytime soon. If indeed he is a one year rental that takes our Big 3 of prospects out completely (unless BC eats some bad shrimp or something and goes insane). Also I think that with the bevy of FAs leaving the Nats are in win-now mode so dealing a #1 pitcher isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Dec 30, 2014 18:02:28 GMT -5
what about a three team deal with the Rays-Red Sox-Nationals? Something along the lines of: Zimmermann to the Red Sox, Zobrist + Sox Prospect to the Nationals, 2 Sox Prospects + Nats prospect to the Rays?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 31, 2014 7:05:32 GMT -5
what about a three team deal with the Rays-Red Sox-Nationals? Something along the lines of: Zimmermann to the Red Sox, Zobrist + Sox Prospect to the Nationals, 2 Sox Prospects + Nats prospect to the Rays? OK, but who are the prospects who get that done? I'm not sure the Sox 3-prospect outlay gets much better in that situation.
|
|
|