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 Jan 20, 2015 22:01:24 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I'm not following this. The only downside to Stras signing for an additional 20/28/28/28 is that he crumbles during the contract. But of course he could crumble the next 2 years too. All on him. Otherwise, he's still going to command insane money when he's 30. And it's not like Scherzer's failure to procure a legitimate $200m contract won't still exist when Stras is a younger 28. Teams still won't want the risk of paying him top dollar when he's 35+.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 22:07:40 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I'm not following this. The only downside to Stras signing for an additional 20/28/28/28 is that he crumbles during the contract. But of course he could crumble the next 2 years too. All on him. Otherwise, he's still going to command insane money when he's 30. And it's not like Scherzer's failure to procure a legitimate $200m contract won't still exist when Stras is a younger 28. Teams still won't want the risk of paying him top dollar when he's 35+. You really think all 30 teams will be sane and not offer a 28 year old Strasburg what Boras wants? 2 more years under 30 is a huge, huge difference between Strasburg and Scherzer.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 20, 2015 22:17:08 GMT -5
Seems they are smartening up and moving away from that, given that Scherzer was signed for nowhere near what he wanted and Shields is still out there. Is 28 year old Stras a better sign than a 30 year old Scherzer for 7 years? of course he is. But he's not reaping Kershaw money from that advantage, I doubt anyway.
To add: If not extended, Stras loses $15-20m prior to his age 28, as well.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 22:39:14 GMT -5
Seems they are smartening up and moving away from that, given that Scherzer was signed for nowhere near what he wanted and Shields is still out there. Is 28 year old Stras a better sign than a 30 year old Scherzer for 7 years? of course he is. But he's not reaping Kershaw money from that advantage, I doubt anyway. To add: If not extended, Stras loses $15-20m prior to his age 28, as well. Well I've said Strasburg will be somewhere between Scherzer and Kershaw's contracts. It's a pretty safe statement.
|
|
|
Nationals
Jan 21, 2015 6:59:05 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by burythehammer on Jan 21, 2015 6:59:05 GMT -5
Scherzer signed for nowhere near what he wanted? Seriously?
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jan 21, 2015 11:46:55 GMT -5
Many posts ago, someone offered that Boston could make Marrero as part of the offer bc Washington might lose Desmond. Not sure if that was before the SD trade but they'll have Turner in the pipeline now so that doesn't add much (in terms of positional need).
Not a rumor but a Bleacher Report suggestion was Owens, Margot, Coyle and an arm (Mercedes was suggested) as a reasonable package? If Washington comes to the point that A) they ARE moving him and B) they aren't getting a Betts/Bogarts type fron ANY team, is that a reasonable offer?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 21, 2015 15:45:39 GMT -5
Price with 1 1/2 years left was traded for Smyly, Franklin, and Willy Adames, this is the closest comp to a Strasburg trade. Biggest difference is Tampa was trying to rebuild, Nationals are not.
Closest comparable trade from the Red Sox system I would say is Kelly, Marrero, and Margot or Devers (this is lighter than the Price package). Kelly and Marrero are respectively less favorable than Smyly and Franklin, but Margot or Devers would be more favorable that Adames. Not trying to suggest that this is a trade Nationals would even consider, just trying to map out the history.
I still don't think there is much of a chance the Nationals trade Strasburg or Zimmerman, I think Fister is the most probable and Roark is the next. I say that because the National's really don't have to many holes for 2015. They could use some OF and bullpen depth, but that isn't something you trade Strasburg for.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 21, 2015 15:51:13 GMT -5
Kelly and Marrero are not close in value to Smyly and Franklin.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 21, 2015 15:54:48 GMT -5
Craig for Fister?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 21, 2015 15:55:19 GMT -5
Kelly and Marrero are not close in value to Smyly and Franklin. yea I knew that was a huge stretch on Marrero, but I'd argue that Kelly is somewhat close. It's also ignoring the over value of Devers or Margot over Adames
|
|
|
Nationals
Jan 21, 2015 19:52:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jmei on Jan 21, 2015 19:52:27 GMT -5
Not unless the Nats really believe in a Craig bounce back or Boston adds a good bit of prospect value to balance it out.
|
|
|
Nationals
Jan 21, 2015 19:58:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jmei on Jan 21, 2015 19:58:07 GMT -5
Kelly and Marrero are not close in value to Smyly and Franklin. yea I knew that was a huge stretch on Marrero, but I'd argue that Kelly is somewhat close. It's also ignoring the over value of Devers or Margot over Adames I think Smyly is a lot better. He'd been one of the best relievers in the league the year before and was putting up an above-average season as a starter. Kelly has basically never had a sustained stretch as an above-average starter. I also think the Adames vs Margot/Devers question is closer than you think. He's a really well-regarded prospect.
|
|
|
Nationals
Jan 21, 2015 20:56:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by larrycook on Jan 21, 2015 20:56:58 GMT -5
Baseballhotcorner.com says sox preparing to go after zimmermann. Giving the Nationals a list of players to pick from. Kelly, Barnes, checchini, Bradley and Craig.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 21, 2015 21:10:35 GMT -5
As a starting point, the Red Sox need to offer someone better than a first-round draft pick. Otherwise the Nats can and should hold onto Zimmermann and give him a QO. Rodriguez or Margot would realistically be the players in that spot, and Devers too depending on how they rate him.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Nationals
Jan 21, 2015 22:16:37 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Jan 21, 2015 22:16:37 GMT -5
As a starting point, the Red Sox need to offer someone better than a first-round draft pick. Otherwise the Nats can and should hold onto Zimmermann and give him a QO. Rodriguez or Margot would realistically be the players in that spot, and Devers too depending on how they rate him. First round picks are going to be far away from contributing though. It's not that cut and dry.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 21, 2015 22:40:25 GMT -5
Baseballhotcorner.com says sox preparing to go after zimmermann. Giving the Nationals a list of players to pick from. Kelly, Barnes, checchini, Bradley and Craig. If that's what Baseballhotcorner.com is saying then they're full of it. That's a very underwhelming package for Zimmerman. I'm sure a lot of other teams could beat it. There's not a top rated prospect in the bunch that is listed which is a questionable starter, a prospect starter who's more likely to relieve, a prospect who would have no position with the Nats in Cecchini who would be blocked at 1b and 3b by Zimmerman and Rendon respectively, a suspect OF, and another OF whose career is at a serious crossroads and may never recover. I would think the Nats could do better than that.
|
|
|
Nationals
Jan 21, 2015 23:18:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 21, 2015 23:18:18 GMT -5
That's from some dude name Frank Pimentel on Twitter. He's not a source. I don't think anything he has thrown out there has stuck.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 22, 2015 10:33:53 GMT -5
That's from some dude name Frank Pimentel on Twitter. He's not a source. I don't think anything he has thrown out there has stuck. But larrycook sure does like to throw them out there without naming the source. His twitter is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 22, 2015 18:48:05 GMT -5
On a theoretical Betts for Strasburg trade: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/making-the-case-for-a-strasburgbetts-trade/It's an interesting question, and really turns on your discount rate-- how valuable wins are in 2015/2016 versus how valuable they are in 2017 and beyond, though there are a number of other factors that are critically important as well (e.g., how likely is it that Strasburg signs an extension, how good you think Victorino/Castillo will be next year, how good is Mookie's OF defense, how much of an upgrade Strasburg represents over Kelly/Masterson). I've flip-floped on it a bunch, but ultimately, I think the likelihood that Strasburg walks in two years combined with the tantalizing potential of a Betts/Bogaerts core means I prefer to keep Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 23, 2015 7:21:33 GMT -5
On a theoretical Betts for Strasburg trade: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/making-the-case-for-a-strasburgbetts-trade/It's an interesting question, and really turns on your discount rate-- how valuable wins are in 2015/2016 versus how valuable they are in 2017 and beyond, though there are a number of other factors that are critically important as well (e.g., how likely is it that Strasburg signs an extension, how good you think Victorino/Castillo will be next year, how good is Mookie's OF defense, how much of an upgrade Strasburg represents over Kelly/Masterson). I've flip-floped on it a bunch, but ultimately, I think the likelihood that Strasburg walks in two years combined with the tantalizing potential of a Betts/Bogaerts core means I prefer to keep Mookie. I read this and it had the effect of convincing me that the trade makes no sense for the Sox, unless they get a window to negotiate an extension or something. Which I think is the opposite of what was intended. 3 wins this year and one next year (if you accept his premise, which I'm not sure I do...) doesn't make it nearly worth it. Plus, I don't buy his supposition that Betts is basically a tenth man this year, which is another problem entirely. I have had a similar thought that Betts fits better on another team, and on the Nationals in particular.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 23, 2015 7:23:27 GMT -5
A good deal of that article assumes that Mookie has only the 389 PAs that Steamer projects for him so they wouldn't be losing as much as they actually would. Would any Red Sox fan project much less than 600? The article also assumes Victorino is healthy all year. It also doesn't really address the 4 extra lost years of Mookie vs. Strasburg because they just assume the Red Sox extend him.
Another fun thing missed - Steamer projects Strasburg for 3.8 fWAR this year and if you project Betts to 600 PAs, he'd be at 3.7.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jan 23, 2015 12:17:48 GMT -5
A good deal of that article assumes that Mookie has only the 389 PAs that Steamer projects for him so they wouldn't be losing as much as they actually would. Would any Red Sox fan project much less than 600? The article also assumes Victorino is healthy all year. It also doesn't really address the 4 extra lost years of Mookie vs. Strasburg because they just assume the Red Sox extend him. Another fun thing missed - Steamer projects Strasburg for 3.8 fWAR this year and if you project Betts to 600 PAs, he'd be at 3.7. The 389 PAs isn't from Steamer, it's from the Fangraphs manual depth charts (even though it looks like a Steamer projection). Which, I agree, is definitely lower than is reasonable as a projection - he'll be starting daily.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 23, 2015 14:00:20 GMT -5
A good deal of that article assumes that Mookie has only the 389 PAs that Steamer projects for him so they wouldn't be losing as much as they actually would. Would any Red Sox fan project much less than 600? The article also assumes Victorino is healthy all year. It also doesn't really address the 4 extra lost years of Mookie vs. Strasburg because they just assume the Red Sox extend him. Another fun thing missed - Steamer projects Strasburg for 3.8 fWAR this year and if you project Betts to 600 PAs, he'd be at 3.7. The 389 PAs isn't from Steamer, it's from the Fangraphs manual depth charts (even though it looks like a Steamer projection). Which, I agree, is definitely lower than is reasonable as a projection - he'll be starting daily. That is a steamer projection. Fan graphs uses Steamer.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 23, 2015 14:22:59 GMT -5
The Fangraphs projected standings/team WAR use rate projections from Steamer adjusted by playing time estimates from Fangraphs. So the per 600 PAs/200 IP projections are Steamer projections, but in filling out the depth charts and compiling projected team standings/WAR, there is a manual adjustment of playing time involved.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Jan 24, 2015 7:47:05 GMT -5
On a theoretical Betts for Strasburg trade: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/making-the-case-for-a-strasburgbetts-trade/It's an interesting question, and really turns on your discount rate-- how valuable wins are in 2015/2016 versus how valuable they are in 2017 and beyond, though there are a number of other factors that are critically important as well (e.g., how likely is it that Strasburg signs an extension, how good you think Victorino/Castillo will be next year, how good is Mookie's OF defense, how much of an upgrade Strasburg represents over Kelly/Masterson). I've flip-floped on it a bunch, but ultimately, I think the likelihood that Strasburg walks in two years combined with the tantalizing potential of a Betts/Bogaerts core means I prefer to keep Mookie. I read that one too. While I love Betts too, there's such a thing as dealing from a position of strength to fill a position of weakness. I agree with the author's premise that Mookie's a much better fit in Washington and vice versa for Strasburg here.
If it wasn't for the years of control issue I'd say go for it 100%. All the talk in this thread about a Strasburg extension is, no offense, not going to happen. Strasburg is a Boras client so the odds he'd sign an extension for even Lester money are practically nil.
|
|
|