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.
2015 Non-Sox thread
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 15, 2015 19:33:03 GMT -5
I don't really care who's fault it is or what teams are stupid. I as a baseball fan just have absolutely no interest in seeing players embarrass themselves because they're still owed a stupid amount of money. And yes I know that it's not an easy change. So it essentially comes down to whether you and others will stop watching games, attending games, buying baseball swag, etc. If there are indications that will happen, then I'm sure MLB will take this very seriously to avoid losing the $$$. I agree in general - just not sure we are at that point yet ( and keep in mind those on this forum are the minority of baseball fans - I don't think most care about the player's pay as much as we do)[/b] I have to keep telling myself that. Most fans have no idea who the prospects we traded are. The last post in this thread is about a platoon of wmb and I don't care how his last name is spelled. One has no clue what's coming and one has no glove and no clue.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 15, 2015 23:41:53 GMT -5
Seeing a Cecchini/Middlebrooks platoon come to fruition (if that actually happens) would be pretty interesting to say the least. Particularly if you root for the Cubs, Cardinals, Reds, or Pirates.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2015 9:34:46 GMT -5
Seeing a Cecchini/Middlebrooks platoon come to fruition (if that actually happens) would be pretty interesting to say the least. Particularly if you root for the Cubs, Cardinals, Reds, or Pirates. Yeah a major league WMB/Cecchini platoon doesn't strike me as a lineup situation a winning team would be ok with. I hope I'm proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2015 11:25:41 GMT -5
Jim, do you see contract figures floating above a guys head when he's in the field? How does what a guy makes affect you watching the game? Vernon wells didn't live up to his contract, but it's not like he didn't belong in the major leagues either. Allen Craig doesn't and guess what he's not... Most of these awful contracts are to players who should still have a job just not at that amount. Therefore they don't really bring down the quality of product unless you see dollars above their heads We had to watch Craig give us -1.9 wins first. And you forgot guys like Uggla, Crawford, Zito, Howard, Lincecum, Hamilton and about 50 others I could come up with. The contract figures do not float over their heads when I'm watching them. They float over their heads when management decides how long of a leash to give them. So yeah, if one of Pablo and Hanley are playing below replacement level this year while Travis Shaw is on the bench, I'm going to be pissed. I understand trying to recover Pablo and Hanley's values, but it's not enjoyable at all. It's annoying as hell. It's always annoying watching a player suck or a team suck. Young or old, rich or poor. The Lackey trade was piss poor, but Craig on his own at that contract, age and precious production looked like one of those good value contracts you all love so much.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 16, 2015 12:19:50 GMT -5
So it looks like Montas was worth a little more than being a toss in for Peavy...
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 16, 2015 12:45:39 GMT -5
So it looks like Montas was worth a little more than being a toss in for Peavy... The Dodgers did very well in that 3 team deal. I thought the Reds got the worst of the deal honestly. Montas' numbers didn't look too good in 2013, so I didn't object to his inclusion. It's too bad somebody in the organization wasn't pounding the table saying to keep this guy. Montas' 2013 now looks like an outlier, a bump in his development that he got thru.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2015 12:54:16 GMT -5
Montas was one in a string of hard-throwing IFAs with mediocre to below-average control the Red Sox traded. Raul Alcantara comes to mind, and there's probably another I'm not thinking of. You trade enough of those guys and one will eventually turn into something, but I wouldn't freak out about Montas being traded quite yet. There's still a very good chance he's a reliever.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,421
|
Post by ianrs on Dec 16, 2015 12:54:23 GMT -5
So it looks like Montas was worth a little more than being a toss in for Peavy... For every Montas, there's an Engel Beltre or a Garin Cecchini. Though we have the benefit of retrospect now, there's uncertainty in both directions (success or failure) when making trades. Though of course I would prefer if we had kept Montas at this point. But even still his future is uncertain.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Dec 16, 2015 12:57:00 GMT -5
Montas was one in a string of hard-throwing IFAs with mediocre to below-average control the Red Sox traded. Raul Alcantara comes to mind, and there's probably another I'm not thinking of. You trade enough of those guys and one will eventually turn into something, but I wouldn't freak out about Montas being traded quite yet. There's still a very good chance he's a reliever. Don't forget about our Prodigal Son: Roman Mendez
|
|
|
Post by MLBDreams on Dec 16, 2015 13:04:26 GMT -5
In case you missed the news about ex-Red Sox prospect Lincoln Holdzkom that he passed away at age of 33 from the car crash on Sunday in CA. The source is Rotoworld.com via Baseball America.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,872
|
Post by nomar on Dec 16, 2015 13:09:10 GMT -5
Reds got hosed. Peraza is a utility/pinch runner type IMO.
Makes sense for the Dodgers and I guess the White Sox too, but I still think the White Sox offense will be a bit too anemic and defense will be too poor for them to contend.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Dec 16, 2015 13:34:57 GMT -5
Does this technically count as a rare prospect for prospect trade in the eyes of the Dodgers?
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Dec 16, 2015 13:35:41 GMT -5
The Frazier deal is awfully interesting to me, and I believe there is more going on here than just this trade. The Dodgers could certainly have used Frazier, he would have helped their lineup and helped ease the PR hit they are taking for losing out on Greinke and the other FA aces. The players the Reds got for Frazier all came from the Dodgers, so the Dodgers most certainly could have dealt for Frazier without involving the White Sox. Furthermore, the players/prospects the Dodgers got from the White Sox in this deal don’t make sense for the Dodgers, Thompson will be in AAA with the depth the Dodgers have in the OF, and Johnson doesn’t seem like an improvement for them at 2B (Peraza was probably a superior prospect at the position), Montas represents an advanced high octane arm for them, but his future may very well be in the backend of a bullpen. Why do the Dodgers take that package instead of just adding Frazier? I think the answer is the stockpiling of prospects is intended in a bigger deal on the horizon, specifically for Jose Fernandez. I could see a mega deal with Fernandez and Ozuna going to the Dodgers for a package including some of the following: Puig, Montas, Holmes, Johnson, Thompson, possibly De Leon or Barnes, could even see Joc Pederson in the deal if Ozuna is involved. I think the Dodgers are motivated to deal for Fernandez, but do not want to include either of Seager or Urias, adding the players/prospects from the Frazier deal may allow them to do so.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 16, 2015 13:44:29 GMT -5
Just FYI: The trade is:
White Sox: + Todd Frazier - Frankie Montas, Trayce Thompson, Micah Johnson
Reds: + Jose Peraza, Scott Schebler, Brandon Dixon - Todd Frazier
Dodgers: + Frankie Montas, Trayce Thompson, Micah Johnson - Jose Peraza, Scott Schebler, Brandon Dixon
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 16, 2015 13:53:37 GMT -5
So it looks like Montas was worth a little more than being a toss in for Peavy... For every Montas, there's an Engel Beltre or a Garin Cecchini. Though we have the benefit of retrospect now, there's uncertainty in both directions (success or failure) when making trades. Though of course I would prefer if we had kept Montas at this point. But even still his future is uncertain. We might not want to go all Mariano Rivera on Frankie Montas just yet. In 15 innings with the White Sox he had 20 Ks and 9 BBs . In 2014 he knocked his WHIP way back, but last year he misplaced that mojo. There's definitely a bit of upside as he's only 22, but he's not a finished product just yet.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 16, 2015 13:53:46 GMT -5
Weird trade. You'd think with the prospects being thrown around this offseason that the Reds could have gotten more. This is a much smaller haul than the Padres got for Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Dec 16, 2015 14:07:47 GMT -5
Mike Napoli to the Indians on 1 yr deal according to Ken Rosenthal
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,421
|
Post by ianrs on Dec 16, 2015 14:28:25 GMT -5
Weird trade. You'd think with the prospects being thrown around this offseason that the Reds could have gotten more. This is a much smaller haul than the Padres got for Kimbrel. Absolutely agreed. Frazier had a 4.4 fWAR last year and is projected for a 3.2 WAR by Steamer. More than twice that of Kimbrel... Sure its 3 years of control versus two, but the affordability of Frazier (2 years / 12 M) makes up for that. What an odd offseason. It really seems like teams are disproportionately influenced by recent trends in playoff success (i.e. Royals relievers). Also a weird trade for the Dodgers. They really haven't done much this offseason to offset the loss of Greinke. I really have no idea what to make of the market at this point. Teams have such different ways of valuing players, types of players, and certainty over uncertainty, its tough to get a read on a "general" market.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 16, 2015 14:44:53 GMT -5
Weird trade. You'd think with the prospects being thrown around this offseason that the Reds could have gotten more. This is a much smaller haul than the Padres got for Kimbrel. Absolutely agreed. Frazier had a 4.4 fWAR last year and is projected for a 3.2 WAR by Steamer. More than twice that of Kimbrel... Sure its 3 years of control versus two, but the affordability of Frazier (2 years / 12 M) makes up for that. What an odd offseason. It really seems like teams are disproportionately influenced by recent trends in playoff success (i.e. Royals relievers). Also a weird trade for the Dodgers. They really haven't done much this offseason to offset the loss of Greinke. I really have no idea what to make of the market at this point. Teams have such different ways of valuing players, types of players, and certainty over uncertainty, its tough to get a read on a "general" market. Pitching: over priced Value that won't be realized for a year or more: under priced
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Dec 16, 2015 14:45:36 GMT -5
Weird trade. You'd think with the prospects being thrown around this offseason that the Reds could have gotten more. This is a much smaller haul than the Padres got for Kimbrel. Actually, they got a pretty good haul for Frazier . . . they just decided to spin it off to LAD for some blah.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 16, 2015 14:50:15 GMT -5
Weird trade. You'd think with the prospects being thrown around this offseason that the Reds could have gotten more. This is a much smaller haul than the Padres got for Kimbrel. Actually, they got a pretty good haul for Frazier . . . they just decided to spin it off to LAD for some blah. Even the Dodgers haul looks pretty marginal to me. Frazier is a really excellent player signed for cheap for two years. I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2015 14:56:28 GMT -5
Question: does Owens/Margot/Marrero compare well enough to what LAD got that it would've gotten this done? Issue would be the Marrero/Johnson comp isn't quite good, depending on what Dodgers wanted. Would you pull the trigger on that?
I don't think Sox matched up with Cincy, assuming they wanted a young, MLB-ready 2B (Phillips trade is apparently imminent, hence Peraza) or 3B in the deal.
Brendan98's Dodgers points are very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by xanderdu on Dec 16, 2015 15:27:10 GMT -5
The Frazier deal is awfully interesting to me, and I believe there is more going on here than just this trade. The Dodgers could certainly have used Frazier, he would have helped their lineup and helped ease the PR hit they are taking for losing out on Greinke and the other FA aces. The players the Reds got for Frazier all came from the Dodgers, so the Dodgers most certainly could have dealt for Frazier without involving the White Sox. Furthermore, the players/prospects the Dodgers got from the White Sox in this deal don’t make sense for the Dodgers, Thompson will be in AAA with the depth the Dodgers have in the OF, and Johnson doesn’t seem like an improvement for them at 2B (Peraza was probably a superior prospect at the position), Montas represents an advanced high octane arm for them, but his future may very well be in the backend of a bullpen. Why do the Dodgers take that package instead of just adding Frazier? I think the answer is the stockpiling of prospects is intended in a bigger deal on the horizon, specifically for Jose Fernandez. I could see a mega deal with Fernandez and Ozuna going to the Dodgers for a package including some of the following: Puig, Montas, Holmes, Johnson, Thompson, possibly De Leon or Barnes, could even see Joc Pederson in the deal if Ozuna is involved. I think the Dodgers are motivated to deal for Fernandez, but do not want to include either of Seager or Urias, adding the players/prospects from the Frazier deal may allow them to do so. I think we have Bingo! Excellent review and reading the tea leaves. It all makes so much sense
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 16, 2015 15:34:32 GMT -5
Question: does Owens/Margot/Marrero compare well enough to what LAD got that it would've gotten this done? Issue would be the Marrero/Johnson comp isn't quite good, depending on what Dodgers wanted. Would you pull the trigger on that? I don't think Sox matched up with Cincy, assuming they wanted a young, MLB-ready 2B (Phillips trade is apparently imminent, hence Peraza) or 3B in the deal. Brendan98's Dodgers points are very interesting. Close, with some obvious differences. Thompson is just about maxed out on his projection, with some writers seeing his start last years as a fluke, projecting him to be a platoon bat. Of course there are posters on this board who see Margot the same way. But there's a big difference between a 20-year old who just showed up in AA, and a 25-year old who's worked his way through the system for quite a few years. Owens and Montas had similar numbers in AAA, and they're the same age, but they are very different pitchers. Depending on what the Dodgers were looking for, these guys would at least be in the same discussion. The biggest difference is between Marrero and Johnson. Marrero doesn't have Johnson's power, but then Johnson can't carry Marrero's glove. Again, depends on what the team was looking for. I think they're similar packages but not quite equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 16, 2015 15:41:20 GMT -5
I'll play the other side of this and say that if the Reds are big on Peraza specifically (which isn't necessarily crazy) then this isn't an awful deal.
It's a little weird the White Sox are trading prospects for Todd Frazier too, though as a strict value-adding transaction they did well. It would probably make sense for them to flip Frazier sometime within the next year.
I'll join the consensus saying that I like Brendan's point about the Dodgers stockpiling to put together a bigger deal. I think there's something to that. Even if it's not for Fernandez specifically there's players out there to get. Frazier isn't a wonderful fit for Chavez Ravine either.
|
|
|