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 soxcentral on Sept 6, 2015 12:48:31 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. My original proposal was Champan+ for Miley/Margot. If you see Margot for Chapman as a straight up fair deal, which it may be, then all the better. But the reality is if the Reds put him on the market again there will be competition, and to pull the trigger now instead of next July I think they'd need more than just a prospect. It will have to be sold to their fan base as off-season trades and ticket sales go hand in hand. Adding a SP in the return for Chapman makes sense from a Reds PR standpoint. Which is why I think we should get a prospect back too in any deal structured like this. You guys are a lot better than me at valuing the imbalance of Chapman (plus potential pick) for Miley/Margot. Maybe an arm like Amir Garrett or Nick Travieso.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Sept 6, 2015 12:51:46 GMT -5
Guerra to me is potentially a bit more valuable as a plus defender with a potentially emerging bat. Plus, he is farther away and, if our scouts believe he is the real deal, holding him for another year makes more sense as his stock would likely jump 6-12 months from now.
Also, our middle infield depth in the minors is very, very thin afer Marrero. Especially if you see Moncada as a future corner IF/OF and not a 2B. Guerra is more likely to have a future role with us than Margot.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Sept 6, 2015 13:03:10 GMT -5
Votto's contract might be the most concerning in baseball with it running until he is 40. Yeah because payers can't perform/hit until they're 40 anymore, right Big Papi? I'm just trying to exchange problems here meaning that Votto can play first, does get on base and can become the DH while Hanley can (probably) play first at an acceptable level for a rebuild and has a shorter contract that frees them up by the time they are ready to contend again.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Sept 6, 2015 13:47:14 GMT -5
Votto is not Papi. Would Votto's financial obligations restrict the ability for the Red Sox to upgrade the starting pitching?
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 8, 2015 18:09:21 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. Reds need to rebuild. So Margot makes sense. Miley makes zero sense for a rebuilding team. Short years of control, rising salary. Not happening. If Margot isn't enough, there's probably another low prospect the Reds would be interested in (i.e. ysla or raudes) along with him. Can't really surmise much past this, if the Reds don't really care for Margot then it's a bust.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,054
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 10, 2015 8:25:45 GMT -5
Owens and Bradley for Chapman if they can extend him
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 10, 2015 8:43:38 GMT -5
Owens and Bradley for Chapman if they can extend him You really need to think this through. The value the team would be getting is so much less than what it would be giving up that it would be crushing. I know people just throw things up against the wall, but this makes no sense.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,054
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 10, 2015 10:19:35 GMT -5
I disagree Norm, you just discount the value of a dominant reliever because they only throw "X number of innings". I look at it as they affect 25% of the games.
I'm selling high on Bradley. He had one great month with the bat. You all think his floor is an average regular but his floor is busting out of the game because he can't hit. I don't think he's a bust, but I also don't think he's an all-star. He's probably a solid starter and Owens is a 3/4 starter which this team doesn't need.
You know all these trade analyses that are done after the fact when young players are traded for proven talent and people add up the "projected WAR" of the new players and compare it to the highly likely WAR of the veteran? I wish someone would go back and compile an analysis of what actually happened years later. A GM needs to give up something to get something and part of that job is making a decision on who's actually going to reach their potential. I'd actually rather do this trade for Kimbrel than Chapman because he's signed for 3 years, but the Red Sox are better with Kimbrel than they are with Owens and Bradley.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 10, 2015 10:24:43 GMT -5
Owens and Bradley for Chapman if they can extend him If anyone of our starting OF is traded for a non OF, DDom had better already have another OF in his pocket. Our current roster doesn't have a full-time replacement. We already need a 4th OF as it is which we could obtain rather cheaply in FA. In this offseason, he has to make trades in a certain order & not get cornered into HAVING to obtain an OF via trade, or the price goes way up.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,891
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 10, 2015 10:39:51 GMT -5
Owens and Bradley for Chapman if they can extend him That's insane. People are really jumping ship from Owens quick. His changeup has already translated very well and made the list fangraphs put up of best changeups in baseball. Give him time. He's valuable. I respect your opinion and see the reasoning for selling high on JBJ, but if we're going to sell high on him, I would really hope we do so for a starting pitcher rather than an elite closer.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 10, 2015 11:23:48 GMT -5
I disagree Norm, you just discount the value of a dominant reliever because they only throw "X number of innings". I look at it as they affect 25% of the games. I'm selling high on Bradley. He had one great month with the bat. You all think his floor is an average regular but his floor is busting out of the game because he can't hit. I don't think he's a bust, but I also don't think he's an all-star. He's probably a solid starter and Owens is a 3/4 starter which this team doesn't need. You know all these trade analyses that are done after the fact when young players are traded for proven talent and people add up the "projected WAR" of the new players and compare it to the highly likely WAR of the veteran? I wish someone would go back and compile an analysis of what actually happened years later. A GM needs to give up something to get something and part of that job is making a decision on who's actually going to reach their potential. I'd actually rather do this trade for Kimbrel than Chapman because he's signed for 3 years, but the Red Sox are better with Kimbrel than they are with Owens and Bradley. Last year, Owens at the age of 22 and just getting his feet wet, started 11 games. Bradley played a little over a third of the year, but he really only ramped it up after August. They were still more valuable than Chapman. It's easy to project them as a tandem as being worth 2 to 3 times what Aroldis Chapman will ever deliver, year after year. And, the team will pay 4-5 times more that it would have for those forgone wins. That's if they can get him to extend. You flunked your GM final.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 10, 2015 11:47:41 GMT -5
I disagree Norm, you just discount the value of a dominant reliever because they only throw "X number of innings". I look at it as they affect 25% of the games. This is a funny way to look at it, and I'm not sure it supports your point. Remember, a position player like Bradley affects 80%+ of the games, while a starting pitcher like Owens has a much larger effect on each of the ~15% of the games he starts. Remember, your run of the mill replacement-level reliever (think Jean Machi, who was in fact the Red Sox closer for part of the year) would do just as well as Chapman would in a significant majority of the games you'd use them in. Even if you use context-sensitive measures like Win Probability Added, the difference between Chapman (+2.59 in 2015) and Machi (+1.42 in 2015) is pretty minor.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,054
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 10, 2015 12:50:19 GMT -5
He was only more valuable than Chapman if you believe WAR or the other formulas properly value bullpen guys which I do not think they come close to doing.
I understand the replacement for Bradley argument and don't disagree per se. It certainly comes down to your personal evaluation of Bradley. If you think he's the August performer then sure you probably aren't dealing him for anything short of an Ace and if another team values him that way who had an Ace to deal then jump at it. If the Sox think he's that guy as well then keep him, but I don't. I look at him before and after that hit streak. I look at the BABIP and high K rate during that time and I have doubts he will be a worth while starter and even greater doubts he's close to as valuable as he was in August.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 10, 2015 13:17:37 GMT -5
There has to be some way to evaluate players separate from the smell test, which can stink up the room. The idea that all this is done by ignoring performance makes no sense. Once you start talking about performance, you have to find some way to measure it. Once you measure it you have a way to compare. The only other way is eyeballs. These days, both are brought into play, along with other evaluations including temperament, physical makeup, and the psychological profile. Anything the team can get its hands on.
All those have to play a part. And it isn't just about Bradley as you imply. Your post was straight up about Bradley and Owens to acquire a reliever. That's a gold-glove centerfielder who showed some serious bat and has a very good track record in the minors, and a 22 year old lefthander, also with a very good track record and the potential to pitch 200+ innings for many years to come. Those two are worth much more than a reliever, and any scout would tell you the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 10, 2015 17:55:18 GMT -5
Just to chime in,
let's say Owens .2 fWAR/55IP from Steamers is fair and he averages .6fWAR/150IP per season for 6 seasons. (essentially replacement level) then you would get 3.6fWAR. (you can treat this as a mean of possible results)
Now let's say Bradley's 2.4fWAR/580 PA from steamers is fair and he puts up 12 fWAR over the next 5 years.
Chapman had 2.5 fWAR last year and steamers projects him for 1.6fWAR next year - for one season. Let's assume he beats his projections and gets 2.5fWAR again.
You would essentially be trading 15.6 fWAR over 5-6 years for 2.5fWAR for 1 year - and this is bending over backwards to skew things for Chapman (if someone wants to use bWAR go for it - but I can't imagine the overall results will vary much).
I'm not going into prospective contracts, as that would take too much time.
One thing these balances never take into affect is the 'quality over quantity' aspect, which plays up extra as Chapman is a relief pitcher and his very few innings are much better than a greater number of innings for someone else. (quality over quantity valuing would assume others will pay more for quality and also that you have extra depth to pull above-replacement level players from)
But no matter how you cut it - this is way too much for Chapman and it would open a gaping hole in RF/CF for next year.
Now, I would trade Owens straight up for Chapman as Chapman will net a 1st round pick if he leaves and the Red Sox have pitching depth on top of the expected 'Ace' signing/acquisition. I may even throw in a little more due to the draft pick/extension possibilities. But even JBJ as a valuable 4th/platoon OFer would tip this too far in the Reds favor. This type of player can still be quite valuable - just look at KC and Jarrod Dyson (substitute some SB for BB/SLG)
|
|
tmg
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by tmg on Nov 11, 2015 21:28:17 GMT -5
First time posting - any thoughts on Votto for Hanley, Craig, and a prospect? Still a lot of money left on the backend for Votto (approx. $100 million from age 36-40), but he should theoretically be a decent bet to age well as he is a high OBP hitter, has an opposite field approach that would favor Fenway, and could DH to rest his surgically repaired knee. I assume the Reds would want a decent prospect in return - e.g., Brian Johnson, Sam Travis - but the Sox would be getting an actual first baseman who should be productive for at least a handful of seasons and the money with Craig and Hanley included would be essentially the same during those productive seasons.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 11, 2015 21:45:14 GMT -5
First time posting - any thoughts on Votto for Hanley, Craig, and a prospect? Still a lot of money left on the backend for Votto (approx. $100 million from age 36-40), but he should theoretically be a decent bet to age well as he is a high OBP hitter, has an opposite field approach that would favor Fenway, and could DH to rest his surgically repaired knee. I assume the Reds would want a decent prospect in return - e.g., Brian Johnson, Sam Travis - but the Sox would be getting an actual first baseman who should be productive for at least a handful of seasons and the money with Craig and Hanley included would be essentially the same during those productive seasons. It just doesn't really fit the ownership model here. Votto is a fantastic player, there's just a lot of risk involved in 8 extremely well compensated years of a 32 year old player with a surgically repaired knee. Craig's money is annoying, but since he's off the 40man and doesn't count towards luxury tax, it's not hugely prohibitive. This team prints money. Reds are also rebuilding, so Craig and Hanley don't do much for them. Might be more worth it to pay Votto 25 million a year to get asses into seats and sell jerseys, and give the fans something to hold onto through the 3-5 year rebuild.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 11, 2015 21:52:18 GMT -5
Also, in reply to wcsoxfan, I would probably hold onto Owens unless you're shipping him out for a starter. His mid to high 4 ERA didn't look impressive, but he his swing and miss stuff was best on the club, and his ERA was slightly inflated due to him getting absolutely walloped in 3 starts.
There was a bit of an interesting divide between his starts. In 3 of them, in about 12 innings he gave up 21ER, just clearly didn't have his stuff on those days. Absolutely got murdered.
But then there were 8 other starts, in which he posted a combined sub 2 ERA. A decent amount of dominance.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 12, 2015 9:19:10 GMT -5
I just can't see a trade for Chapman....what they'll ask for, I don't see us giving....DD will save those bullets for a young starter. Even though we can use him, I don't think they'll take a Marrero/Kopech type trade. Our top prospects are to valuable for a one year rental.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Nov 12, 2015 11:53:53 GMT -5
Peter Gammons @pgammo 4m4 minutes ago That's four people insisting this morning that Aroldys Chapman will be moved by the end of the weekend.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,891
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 12, 2015 11:59:19 GMT -5
I think I'll pass on Chapman. Probably too high of a price attached to one year of a reliever, even if he does bring a draft pick in a year.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 12, 2015 12:14:41 GMT -5
I wonder what it would cost? Chapmans elite but I hate giving up too much for a closer on a one year deal. They got all those LHPs in the Cueto trade so I doubt Owens or Johnson would be appealing and with Hamilton in CF that probably takes JBJ out of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 12, 2015 12:30:42 GMT -5
I wonder what it would cost? Chapmans elite but I hate giving up too much for a closer on a one year deal. They got all those LHPs in the Cueto trade so I doubt Owens or Johnson would be appealing and with Hamilton in CF that probably takes JBJ out of discussion. Cincy may get more for him @ the deadline when contenders need that piece to get to the dance like Baltimore giving up E-Rod.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Nov 12, 2015 13:13:54 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal @ken_Rosenthal 3m3 minutes ago As expected, #RedSox aggressive on multiple fronts. Chapman believed to be one. Team also could go for setup type to put in front of Uehara.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Nov 12, 2015 14:01:24 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal @ken_Rosenthal 1m1 minute ago Sources: #RedSox doing background work on #Reds’ Chapman. Indicates sincerity of interest, not that a deal is close.
|
|
|