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 MLBDreams on Dec 9, 2014 12:51:49 GMT -5
Aroldis Chapman is available per Reds from the Rotoworld. Go get him for Cespendes plus 1 or 2 prospects (not untouched players by RS). We need LH strikeout pitcher that can light out all LH/RH hitters. He have 2 more yr of arbitration years. The RS can afford to pay him the rate.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 9, 2014 13:00:39 GMT -5
Aroldis Chapman is available per Reds from the Rotoworld. Go get him for Cespendes plus 1 or 2 prospects (not untouched players by RS). We need LH strikeout pitcher that can light out all LH/RH hitters. He have 2 more yr of arbitration years. The RS can afford to pay him the rate. Wright should be the setup man for him.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,891
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 9, 2014 13:29:32 GMT -5
Unless we're confident that we can convert him to a starter then that's a waste of Cespedes' trade value. But hey, it worked for Bard!
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 9, 2014 13:54:26 GMT -5
We don't know what cesoedes trade value is but I'd be more than happy if they turned Cespedes into Chapman
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 9, 2014 14:03:07 GMT -5
Well, the Red Sox could use a lefty.
Trading for Chapman in order to make him a starter is the sort of ballsy move that I'm always excited to get on board with. I can't help myself.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 9, 2014 14:08:58 GMT -5
Chapman put the kibosh on the Reds moving him into the rotation though, didn't he?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 9, 2014 14:23:37 GMT -5
He did, but I wonder how much of that was a reaction to that back-and-forth dance about his role that the Reds seemed to do every offseason.
The chances it happens are minuscule, of course. But hey, if I'm going to get irrationally excited about something, I'm going to go all out.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,891
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 9, 2014 14:24:11 GMT -5
Chapman put the kibosh on the Reds moving him into the rotation though, didn't he? Weird I remember him wanting to start. But of course, now that you say that, I vaguely remember hearing this too. I wasn't serious with the Bard comparison of situations. Bard was, by all accounts, a much worse reliever than Chapman. Chapman's a freak. But as a starter, his K/9 would obviously decrease a good amount, and he walks a lot of batters. You can hope that he cuts his BB/9 down when he isn't reaching back and hitting 100 mph, but that wasn't the case in the minors. I think there's a lot of risk there. And if the Reds are willing to move him, they probably don't see him ever becoming a good starter.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Sept 5, 2015 13:36:08 GMT -5
Assuming an off-season signing of a top FA pitcher, I'd like to see us use our best trade chips to power up the back end of our bullpen.
Chapman would be my ideal choice if he's made available again, which for a couple good future assets I can't see why the Reds wouldn't offer him up as he's now a year away from FA. Miley and Margot for Chapman and a lottery ticket arm would be my proposal.
Miley gives the Reds a cost-controlled, dependable innings eater, something they could use. Margot is our best trade chip, but after a top starter (again, assuming a Price/Cueto sign first) the back end of our pen is the next big priority and where we should allocate our resources.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 5, 2015 13:39:14 GMT -5
I would not give up Margot for one year of a reliever, even one as good as Chapman.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Sept 5, 2015 13:47:20 GMT -5
I would not give up Margot for one year of a reliever, even one as good as Chapman. I think they could bring more in return at a later date.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Sept 5, 2015 14:40:29 GMT -5
I would not give up Margot for one year of a reliever, even one as good as Chapman. Perhaps it would be one of those 72 hours to negotiate an extension type situations, or the lottery ticket back is a bit better.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 5, 2015 15:27:42 GMT -5
I would not give up Margot for one year of a reliever, even one as good as Chapman. If you consider that Chapman would also net a draft pick, it doesn't seem that far off to me. Depends on if you view Margot as a top 25 guy or more of a 50-60 type.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 5, 2015 20:51:19 GMT -5
I would not give up Margot for one year of a reliever, even one as good as Chapman. If you consider that Chapman would also net a draft pick, it doesn't seem that far off to me. Depends on if you view Margot as a top 25 guy or more of a 50-60 type. Eh, I'm not sure about that. He'll be paid at least $12m next year, and (generously) projects to something like 2.5 wins. That's only something like $6m in surplus value, which means even if you add a draft pick in his favor and assume Margot is more a #50-75 guy, it's not a trade you really want to make. That's not even to mention Miley, who on his own might be nearly as valuable as Chapman (at least surplus value-wise) next year.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Sept 5, 2015 23:47:48 GMT -5
If you consider that Chapman would also net a draft pick, it doesn't seem that far off to me. Depends on if you view Margot as a top 25 guy or more of a 50-60 type. Eh, I'm not sure about that. He'll be paid at least $12m next year, and (generously) projects to something like 2.5 wins. That's only something like $6m in surplus value, which means even if you add a draft pick in his favor and assume Margot is more a #50-75 guy, it's not a trade you really want to make. That's not even to mention Miley, who on his own might be nearly as valuable as Chapman (at least surplus value-wise) next year. There is no salary cap why does it matter?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 5, 2015 23:48:50 GMT -5
If you consider that Chapman would also net a draft pick, it doesn't seem that far off to me. Depends on if you view Margot as a top 25 guy or more of a 50-60 type. Eh, I'm not sure about that. He'll be paid at least $12m next year, and (generously) projects to something like 2.5 wins. That's only something like $6m in surplus value, which means even if you add a draft pick in his favor and assume Margot is more a #50-75 guy, it's not a trade you really want to make. That's not even to mention Miley, who on his own might be nearly as valuable as Chapman (at least surplus value-wise) next year. While I agree with you about Margot, it's tough to envision a Miley-Chapman 1:1 swap. I guess the question is, could it be done without an upper-tier prospect? Because while I also agree with you regarding surplus value, there's an issue of commodity rarity. Historically dominant relievers, while they may not have WAR value equivalent to a solid #3/4 starter, are certainly a lot more difficult to find, and demand a trade premium despite not a salary one. It's also clearly important to have at least a strong 8/9 combo for postseason success, unless your starters think it's 1970 and go 8 innings a start. As much as I like Chapman, I'd prefer Miley and pieces to SD for Kimbrel, who has three years of control at market value. Miley would be very good in Petco, and SD has a pretty barren system after last winter, meaning they might be enticed into adding depth (with some upside but more risk) over a single high-ceiling/moderate risk player. It's tough to say...but it's very clear that the Sox are in dire need of multiple 'pen pieces who thrive on and succeed in high-leverage situations.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 6, 2015 8:26:08 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not saying that Miley for Chapman would be a realistic trade proposal because of the premium placed on elite relievers. I just meant to illustrate that the idea that (a) Chapman shouldn't command that much in a trade and (b) Miley is more valuable than just a throw-in in a trade like that.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 6, 2015 9:18:28 GMT -5
If you consider that Chapman would also net a draft pick, it doesn't seem that far off to me. Depends on if you view Margot as a top 25 guy or more of a 50-60 type. Eh, I'm not sure about that. He'll be paid at least $12m next year, and (generously) projects to something like 2.5 wins. That's only something like $6m in surplus value, which means even if you add a draft pick in his favor and assume Margot is more a #50-75 guy, it's not a trade you really want to make. That's not even to mention Miley, who on his own might be nearly as valuable as Chapman (at least surplus value-wise) next year. A 50-75 guy is worth about 5 WAR. A supplemental pick is worth something like 3 WAR. So the total WAR of the two sides would be roughly equal in a Margot for Chapman swap. And while the financial outlay would be something like $8-10m more on the Chapman side, half the return comes next year rather than several years in the future and we see time and again that trades of prospects for established major leaguers take more than the sum of the projected WAR to get done. With that said, a Guerra+ trade probably makes more sense.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 6, 2015 10:02:26 GMT -5
Eh, I'm not sure about that. He'll be paid at least $12m next year, and (generously) projects to something like 2.5 wins. That's only something like $6m in surplus value, which means even if you add a draft pick in his favor and assume Margot is more a #50-75 guy, it's not a trade you really want to make. That's not even to mention Miley, who on his own might be nearly as valuable as Chapman (at least surplus value-wise) next year. A 50-75 guy is worth about 5 WAR. A supplemental pick is worth something like 3 WAR. So the total WAR of the two sides would be roughly equal in a Margot for Chapman swap. And while the financial outlay would be something like $8-10m more on the Chapman side, half the return comes next year rather than several years in the future and we see time and again that trades of prospects for established major leaguers take more than the sum of the projected WAR to get done. With that said, a Guerra+ trade probably makes more sense. Do you have a source for those numbers? I've seen a 50-75 hitter valued as $14.5m in net present surplus value, while a comp pick is valued at $6.7m (both numbers solve for the time horizon issue you identify by applying discount rates). Intuitively, it seems crazy that a supplemental draft pick would be worth anywhere close to three wins. If that were the case, you'd see teams being much more hesitant to lose draft picks to sign guys.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 6, 2015 10:43:19 GMT -5
A 50-75 guy is worth about 5 WAR. A supplemental pick is worth something like 3 WAR. So the total WAR of the two sides would be roughly equal in a Margot for Chapman swap. And while the financial outlay would be something like $8-10m more on the Chapman side, half the return comes next year rather than several years in the future and we see time and again that trades of prospects for established major leaguers take more than the sum of the projected WAR to get done. With that said, a Guerra+ trade probably makes more sense. Do you have a source for those numbers? I've seen a 50-75 hitter valued as $14.5m in net present surplus value, while a comp pick is valued at $6.7m (both numbers solve for the time horizon issue you identify by applying discount rates). Intuitively, it seems crazy that a supplemental draft pick would be worth anywhere close to three wins. If that were the case, you'd see teams being much more hesitant to lose draft picks to sign guys. For Margots value I looked here (admittedly, I'm away this weekend and working on my phone, so it was a quick glance at the graph showing a player ranked 60 being worth about 5 WAR) fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-to-expect-from-baseball-americas-top-100-prospects/And for the draft pick, I looked at the second chart down on this page, which looks like pick 32 lines up about with 3 WAR: baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/the_draft_and_w.php
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Sept 6, 2015 11:03:32 GMT -5
Do you believe the Reds would trade Chapman without tying Phillips or Votto to him? This would dramatically affect whether the Red Sox would chase Chapman.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Sept 6, 2015 11:23:20 GMT -5
Do you believe the Reds would trade Chapman without tying Phillips or Votto to him? This would dramatically affect whether the Red Sox would chase Chapman. Chapman and Votto for Miley and Hanley (plus?)?
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Sept 6, 2015 11:52:16 GMT -5
Votto's contract might be the most concerning in baseball with it running until he is 40.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 6, 2015 12:17:08 GMT -5
Do you have a source for those numbers? I've seen a 50-75 hitter valued as $14.5m in net present surplus value, while a comp pick is valued at $6.7m (both numbers solve for the time horizon issue you identify by applying discount rates). Intuitively, it seems crazy that a supplemental draft pick would be worth anywhere close to three wins. If that were the case, you'd see teams being much more hesitant to lose draft picks to sign guys. For Margots value I looked here (admittedly, I'm away this weekend and working on my phone, so it was a quick glance at the graph showing a player ranked 60 being worth about 5 WAR) fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-to-expect-from-baseball-americas-top-100-prospects/And for the draft pick, I looked at the second chart down on this page, which looks like pick 32 lines up about with 3 WAR: baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/the_draft_and_w.phpI think discounting to net present value and the fact that we should be looking at first-six-year WAR (rather than career WAR) resolves most of the ambiguity in my favor.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 6, 2015 12:18:09 GMT -5
A 50-75 guy is worth about 5 WAR. A supplemental pick is worth something like 3 WAR. So the total WAR of the two sides would be roughly equal in a Margot for Chapman swap. And while the financial outlay would be something like $8-10m more on the Chapman side, half the return comes next year rather than several years in the future and we see time and again that trades of prospects for established major leaguers take more than the sum of the projected WAR to get done. With that said, a Guerra+ trade probably makes more sense. Do you have a source for those numbers? I've seen a 50-75 hitter valued as $14.5m in net present surplus value, while a comp pick is valued at $6.7m (both numbers solve for the time horizon issue you identify by applying discount rates). Intuitively, it seems crazy that a supplemental draft pick would be worth anywhere close to three wins. If that were the case, you'd see teams being much more hesitant to lose draft picks to sign guys. I just had a chance to look through your first link and it pegs a 51-75 hitter at about 5 WAR over 6 years. So if we say Margot is a 5 WAR guy. And we agree Chapman is a 2.5 WAR guy that will net a draft pick. Then the question is, would you trade 5 WAR spread out from 2017-2022 for 2.5 WAR in 2016 and a pick in the 30s. I would definitely do that. (I'm higher on Margot than this theoretical scenario, but my first point was that if you value him that way (which is a reasonable valuation) then the trade is reasonable.)
|
|
|