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.
Report: Red Sox have agreement for Wade Miley
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 11, 2014 9:55:43 GMT -5
I've learned to take these tweets/blogs with a grain of salt but I would be shocked if Ben gave up any of those three upside prospects in addition to Rubby and Webster. I comfortable giving the two pitchers but Guerra who's been getting great reviews across the scouting community, Espinoza who they just blew there next two seasons of International budgets on or Rijo (I guess the more palatable option of the three) who looks like he could develop into something close to a league average 2nd baseman crosses my "too much" line. I agree he needs to hold his ground even if it means walking away. Arizona will come to there senses. I normally wouldn't post a comment like that, but the guy who wrote it actually runs the SBN D-Backs blog. I wouldn't expect it to be 100% accurate, but wouldn't be surprised if the general idea and some of the names are the holdup. I concur a long run team focused blog deserves more credence than teenage news breakers or random tweeters. I don't disagree Arizona is pushing for these three but I think it's getting greedy. I would be willing to give one of the three alternatives listed.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 11, 2014 9:57:01 GMT -5
@sean_McAdam: Told that hold-up to Miley-to-Red Sox deal is Dbacks choosing from a list of prospects to be included with Webster and De La Rosa. This smells of at least one 2014 draft pick being on that list. Can't be done. A draftee cannot be traded until 1 year in the organization and a PTBNL needs to be named within 6 months.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 11, 2014 9:57:44 GMT -5
I agree he needs to hold his ground even if it means walking away. Arizona will come to there senses. I normally wouldn't post a comment like that, but the guy who wrote it actually runs the SBN D-Backs blog. I wouldn't expect it to be 100% accurate, but wouldn't be surprised if the general idea and some of the names are the holdup. [/quote] Well, if we agree that Espinoza can't be a part of the trade, then the report seems dubious. At best, it seems like guesswork - perhaps if he has some general idea from a source then perhaps along the lines of "we want one of their top low minor Latin kids" and they are offering bad prospects.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2014 10:00:52 GMT -5
I normally wouldn't post a comment like that, but the guy who wrote it actually runs the SBN D-Backs blog. I wouldn't expect it to be 100% accurate, but wouldn't be surprised if the general idea and some of the names are the holdup. Well, if we agree that Espinoza can't be a part of the trade, then the report seems dubious. At best, it seems like guesswork - perhaps if he has some general idea from a source then perhaps along the lines of "we want one of their top low minor Latin kids" and they are offering bad prospects. I doubt including Espinoza in the list makes the entire thing a lie. Who knows though?
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Dec 11, 2014 10:03:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 11, 2014 11:14:13 GMT -5
See, I think you're either contradicting yourself or agreeing with me. It sometimes makes sense to make a trade that you lose, WAR-wise, if the players you're trading away are simply never going to play for you. For instance, Cespedes, Marrero, Coyle, and Ranaudo for a year of Cueto is a silly overpay in terms of projected WAR under team control, but in reality the projected WAR of those four guys for the Sox as currently constituted is 0. I agree with you, we may well win this trade WAR-wise, but it strikes me as strategically backwards. If Owens, Rodriguez, Barnes, and Johnson have passed RDLR and Webster, I like the odds of one or two of them passing Miley as well. We should essentially be boiling down excess average talent to yield exceptional talent. Here we acquired more average talent and traded away a quite likely exceptional bullpen arm in RDLR (very valuable in the post-season, as we've seen). Edit: I would, BTW, consider this a solid, risk-reducing move if it were Webster and Ranaudo -- as someone else has already opined. I really want to keep assets who have good chances of being exceptionally good. Simply put, I think it fairly likely that RDLR would be more valuable in next year's post-season, as a lights-out 8th inning guy, than Miley would be as quite possibly our 5th starter. I get your first point and agree in a general sense, for sure. I was more making a point about my view of the assets exchanged, since it's a relatively direct swap of RDLR-Miley with Webster thrown in on our side. I think our disagreement really just comes down to the value of RDLR. I hold him in much less regard than you do and don't think he's particularly likely to be a solid starter next year and don't have a lot of confidence that he ever will. But, on the more general point, I'd be very happy with a rotation of five guys with proven track records in the major leagues, backed up by some depth in AAA. While I like their upside considerably more than RDLR, I don't think Owens, Rodriguez, or Johnson will be ready until mid-year at best, and I'm not ready to depend on Barnes for more than occasional starter depth. Honestly, I'd call on Wright before any of them.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 11, 2014 11:33:29 GMT -5
I've softened a bit on this. If there is indeed an unfamiliarity effect with opposing hitters, and with CVaz framing him, he could have a very good, clear #3 season. In which case you sell high on him after one year to clear a rotation spot for one of the kids.
Edit: busy all day today, but I'll try to run some numbers on a familiarity effect tomorrow or Saturday. If it's real, we may be getting the 2012 guy.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
|
Post by nomar on Dec 11, 2014 11:44:36 GMT -5
I've softened a bit on this. If there is indeed an unfamiliarity effect with opposing hitters, and with CVaz framing him, he could have a very good, clear #3 season. In which case you sell high on him after one year to clear a rotation spot for one of the kids. You're also overrating how good RDLR was before hitting said wall. He only pitched well in May and June, which is a 33 inning sample, and one where his BABIP was only .260. For whatever reason, he doesn't have a swing and miss pitch despite his great stuff. He also gives up a lot of home runs, which could be a huge problem for him in AZ. He has just as good of a chance of ending up in the pen as he does making it as more than a 5th starter. Miley isn't high ceiling, but his floor makes him a lot safer, gives us more innings, and puts us in a better position to make the playoffs this year. Side note: CVaz won't be much of a framing upgrade over Montero if he is at all
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 11, 2014 12:11:54 GMT -5
I've softened a bit on this. If there is indeed an unfamiliarity effect with opposing hitters, and with CVaz framing him, he could have a very good, clear #3 season. In which case you sell high on him after one year to clear a rotation spot for one of the kids. You're also overrating how good RDLR was before hitting said wall. He only pitched well in May and June, which is a 33 inning sample, and one where his BABIP was only .260. For whatever reason, he doesn't have a swing and miss pitch despite his great stuff. He also gives up a lot of home runs, which could be a huge problem for him in AZ. He has just as good of a chance of ending up in the pen as he does making it as more than a 5th starter. Miley isn't high ceiling, but his floor makes him a lot safer, gives us more innings, and puts us in a better position to make the playoffs this year. Side note: CVaz won't be much of a framing upgrade over Montero if he is at all I thought Rubby and Wright would be a solid #5 starter until one of the kids took over in July, at which point Rubby would become a force in the pen. I'm mourning his loss as a fairly likely 8th-inning guy of Tazawa+ caliber. Those guys help you go deep in the post-season.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Dec 11, 2014 12:14:37 GMT -5
Could Gustave be the prospect that completes this deal?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
|
Post by nomar on Dec 11, 2014 12:38:37 GMT -5
You're also overrating how good RDLR was before hitting said wall. He only pitched well in May and June, which is a 33 inning sample, and one where his BABIP was only .260. For whatever reason, he doesn't have a swing and miss pitch despite his great stuff. He also gives up a lot of home runs, which could be a huge problem for him in AZ. He has just as good of a chance of ending up in the pen as he does making it as more than a 5th starter. Miley isn't high ceiling, but his floor makes him a lot safer, gives us more innings, and puts us in a better position to make the playoffs this year. Side note: CVaz won't be much of a framing upgrade over Montero if he is at all I thought Rubby and Wright would be a solid #5 starter until one of the kids took over in July, at which point Rubby would become a force in the pen. I'm mourning his loss as a fairly likely 8th-inning guy of Tazawa+ caliber. Those guys help you go deep in the post-season. True, but I also think Barnes will give us that if we don't give him the chance to start which won't happen barring injury this season.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Dec 11, 2014 13:11:12 GMT -5
I've softened a bit on this. If there is indeed an unfamiliarity effect with opposing hitters, and with CVaz framing him, he could have a very good, clear #3 season. In which case you sell high on him after one year to clear a rotation spot for one of the kids. Edit: busy all day today, but I'll try to run some numbers on a familiarity effect tomorrow or Saturday. If it's real, we may be getting the 2012 guy. Was it a massive fWAR overpay over all the years of control? I think Eric will be proved right, and this is likely to be a horrible trade if that's your standard of measure (EDIT: I mean, 3 years of Miley compared to 9+ years of the others). But ... from management's perspective, they need to weigh fWAR against the value of money today (which is worth more than money in ensuing years) at least if you believe that fWAR => $revenue (in tickets sold, TV ratings points). IOW, fWAR today is worth more than fWAR tomorrow. From that perspective, management starts every season in GFIN mode. Porcello, Miley, Masterson -- groundball pitchers -- add up to be a solid bet for Lester-like FIP/xFIP (in Fenway with strong groundball defense behind them). Instead of overpaying Lester/Scherzer with $$ (in a battle you may not win against against teams determined to win, like the Cubs), you overpay trading partners (apparently) with fWAR-tomorrow. It's an interesting idea and it may be worth recalculating our fWAR spreadsheets, for today tomorrow values based on revenue. EDIT: It's interesting that the other team seems to be dragging its feet on confirming the deal. Do they have bargainer's remorse, or do they feel they have so much leverage they can afford to be difficult? EDIT: Found this, which talks about discounting $$ over time as a measure of WAR. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cost-of-a-win-in-the-2014-off-season/
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
|
Post by nomar on Dec 11, 2014 13:13:53 GMT -5
@bnightengale: The #Redsox officials are adamant their deal for #Dbacks Wade Miley is done as @jonmorosi reported yesterday. #dbacks have not confirmed.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Dec 11, 2014 13:20:22 GMT -5
Last night upon learning Miley would go for both Delarosa and Webster, like others, I was disappointed, though felt a bit of understanding based upon explanations here. I loved the excitement of D/W's great stuff upside; an ability to dominate with swings and misses, and wanted to accord them a lifetime leash to give them that shot, whether or not (and perhaps not is more likely) that potential is ever achieved. Obviously, a greater weight is being applied here to the likelyhood of each roster player achieving above average status- not necessarily high ceiling/low consistency, with roster space at a premium given an attmempt to contend. This begets a different player acquisition philosophy which is quite opposite the buy low and develope into high predominant in a forum like this, with people like me, too who love the classic Andrew Miller for Eduardo Rodriguez type of deal. It is more, dare I say, a Yankee type method (though hopefully with more creativity and intelligence)- knowing you have the resources to fill each hole, so go for a shorter and surer term move. This is opposite the Dan Duquette method, who with limited resources for most of his tenure, did not just make the great deals- Pedro, Varitek/Lowe, but also picked up many starting players for nothing- Wakefield, Daubach, Oleary and others while trying out and dumping many others.
The main point I will postulate, is that aside from Duquette's obvious intelligence playing a role, this type of aquisition method enabled him to have a very low rate of getting burned long term in trades (the classic Jeff Bagwell type deal i.e.), wheras a Yankee method will leave them much more vulnerable to such deals blowing up in your face (Jay Buhner, amongst many others). For those with resources, though, it works, they won, and this should too- though it represents one of the potentially riskier moves of Cherington's tenure.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Dec 11, 2014 13:30:16 GMT -5
Steve Gilbert ?@stevegilbertmlb 6m6 minutes ago #Dbacks Dave Stewart on #RedSox deal: "We’re still squabbling about the extra player. If we can get through that than we’ll be OK."
|
|
|
Post by ibsmith85 on Dec 11, 2014 13:36:46 GMT -5
Steve Gilbert ?@stevegilbertmlb 6m6 minutes ago #Dbacks Dave Stewart on #RedSox deal: "We’re still squabbling about the extra player. If we can get through that than we’ll be OK." BC should tell him to pound sand and move on to something else. GM's tweeting about on-going deals is absurd. Plus the deal is only so-so at best.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 11, 2014 13:39:35 GMT -5
Interesting that cherrington traded for two pitchers in porcello and Miley that played for teams with a reputation for leaky infield defense.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Dec 11, 2014 13:43:01 GMT -5
Hold your ground, Ben. You have, at best, made a fair trade even without the third player.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 11, 2014 13:50:43 GMT -5
Steve Gilbert ?@stevegilbertmlb 6m6 minutes ago #Dbacks Dave Stewart on #RedSox deal: "We’re still squabbling about the extra player. If we can get through that than we’ll be OK." Could this mean that they are going to squabble till Jan 1st so that the deal includes a 14 draft signee (1 yr in july) and falls within the 6 month ptbnl clause also?
|
|
|
Post by bookiemetts on Dec 11, 2014 15:26:18 GMT -5
At first I was a little bit skeptical about this trade, with Rubby being the part I didn't like giving up. I don't think Webster will be anything more than a bullpen guy really. But I'm coming around on the deal and this piece on fangraphs is pretty interesting: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wade-miley-who-is-better-than-you-think/If it's been posted here before, that's my bad lol. There is a table which compares Miley to Homer Bailey and Jeff Samardzija over the past 3 years, and you really can't tell the difference. Plus, Miley was pitching in Arizona which has got some short fences, and he still didn't give up that many homers.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 11, 2014 15:29:25 GMT -5
Getting Masterson should give us leverage to walk away here if necessary.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 11, 2014 15:31:39 GMT -5
Getting Masterson should give us leverage to walk away here if necessary. Hardly. Masterson is a gamble. Miley is solid.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 11, 2014 15:32:50 GMT -5
Is it possible that Philly said, that if Hamels is traded here, it wanted Rubby and/or Webster included? Far fetched, I'm sure, as the Sox and Amaro have probably explored the options of a possible deal. But, since the Miley rumor is not confirmed, Ben could back out over a dispute on the third player.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Dec 11, 2014 15:33:13 GMT -5
I take it that the rule is 6 months from when you signed, not from the actual draft.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 11, 2014 15:40:29 GMT -5
I said if necessary. Meaning if AZ doesnt back down on their third piece demands.
|
|
|