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
texs31
Veteran
Posts: 5,257
Member is Online
|
Post by texs31 on Dec 16, 2015 16:20:37 GMT -5
Regarding Chicago wanting Frazier, I think it makes sense. If you squint, you can see a team that could challenge for the AL Central. Abreu, Frazier, Eaton are pretty good. Avila/Navarro, a reasonable platoon at C, is an upgrade from last year. In Sale, Quintana and an improving Rodon you have a Top 3 that could lead a playoff team.
One more hitter (would we be THAT shocked if, as the price came down, they swooped in and got a Cespedes, for example) and some bullpen additions and I don't think it's unreasonable to see them in contention for the division (KC has a lot of work to do to restock their WS team, Cleveland needs more offense, Minnesota and Detroit aren't separating themselves, are they?).
Edited for some absurd grammatical errors (not sure how you even got through it, Chris)
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2015 16:22:18 GMT -5
@norm: I posted that with the thought that Owens (mlb-ready pitcher) and Margot (mlb-ready-ish outfielder) were similar enough and better than Montas and Thompson. Completely agree with all the points you made.
@dunnzo: The consensus seems to be that the AL Central is wide the hell open. You could see that White Sox team getting much better really quick with a few tweaks, and once you're in contention at the deadline, you add some pieces and suddenly you might be a WS contender. You can understand why they may not want to waste their years of cheap Sale and relatively cheap Abreu. If you look at their lineup, they're not there yet, but that division could be a crapshoot, especially with the Royals losing Gordon, Cueto, and Zobrist. EDIT: What texs31 said. Plus, you're paying for Robertson right now too.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 16, 2015 16:54:25 GMT -5
I guess - I just don't see it myself. To me they're still two bats or another very good starter away from being even an 85-win team, and that's going to be tough to put together with their resources. Though maybe 81 wins that division, who knows. Still, I'll point out that I did say I liked the deal from them on a value standpoint anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2015 17:09:08 GMT -5
Yeah, I think you got it with that second part. Consider that the only team in that division to win more than 83 games this season was KC, and they have work to do to fill holes. I also forgot that they're without Holland this year too.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 16, 2015 17:13:09 GMT -5
The White Sox are a very stars-and-scrubs roster, and the one nice thing about a stars-and-scrubs roster is that if you manage to improve on some of those scrubs (by picking up a cheap fill-in who ends up being productive or if some of those scrubs have a minor breakout), you have a very high ceiling. The White Sox are projected to get less than a win's worth of production from SS, LF, RF, DH and the last two spots in their rotation-- if they get even a couple (good) surprises from those positions, they could well be a championship-level team.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 16, 2015 17:20:42 GMT -5
As far as Frazier fitting the Dodgers: - Turner is already a better player at 3B than Frazier - He's played a bit of 2B, but his defensive metrics there are abysmal, and so they probably weren't willing to live with a Seager/Turner middle infield
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 16, 2015 18:17:10 GMT -5
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. And as I said, expensive players get a much longer leash. I never wanted anything to do with Craig. It was a bargain when he was good, not in 2014. Even if he rebounded completely, he doesn't have huge upside. He has less career WAR than Nava.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 16, 2015 18:23:34 GMT -5
The White Sox are projected to get less than a win's worth of production from SS, LF, RF, DH and the last two spots in their rotation-- if they get even a couple (good) surprises from those positions, Yup, and with so many upgradeable positions you can just lean back until the end of January and then check which tier 2 free agents are getting antsy because they haven't got a contract yet.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Dec 16, 2015 18:42:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Dec 16, 2015 18:53:47 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 you make an interesting point, but the Dodgers gave up 3 prospects in Peraza, Schebler, and Dixon in order to get back 3 prospects from the White Sox in Montas, Thompson, and Johnson. I admittedly know very little about these prospects, but did the Dodgers get a net upgrade in quality of prospects that will help them swing a deal for Fernandez? The only other thing I can imagine is if the Marlins openly asked for any of these prospects from the White Sox (because GM's can have their preferences completely independent of objective valuations) and the Dodgers went out to get one or more of those prospects because it would assist them in any sort of deal with the Marlins.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 16, 2015 19:25:04 GMT -5
the Dodgers gave up 3 prospects in Peraza, Schebler, and Dixon in order to get back 3 prospects from the White Sox in Montas, Thompson, and Johnson. I admittedly know very little about these prospects, but did the Dodgers get a net upgrade in quality of prospects that will help them swing a deal for Fernandez? It doesn't need to be a net upgrade - if you trade 3 medium prospects for 1 better and 2 worse ones, then the good prospect you got back could be the only one of the 6 worth mentioning in a Fernandez package even if you didn't get a net upgrade.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 16, 2015 21:32:06 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. I don't think that's what happened at all. You almost never see three prospects being traded for three prospects. You absolutely never see that trade when everyone agrees which side won the deal. I think that the Reds traded Frazier to the Dodgers for three prospects they liked, and then the Dodgers smartly turned around and traded him to the White Sox for an obviously better trio. It always bugs me when a pair of trades like this are described as a "three team deal." A true three team deal is when you can't reduce it to a simple pair of trades (i.e., at least one player was moved between each pair of teams), because it means all three GMs were talking. It also makes sense to use it when each team ended up filling a need, e.g., if Hanley had just a $13M contract, and we sent him to the O's to DH, they sent Hardy to the Nationals (so that they can move Machado back to SS), and the Nats sent us Papelbon. Again, clearly the GMs at least knew how it was going down; we offer Hanley to Duquette, he says we can have Hardy, and we tell him, wait, we can do that if we can get Papelbon for him. In this case, it seems likely that the Reds had no idea that, the whole times they were talking to the Dodgers, the Dodgers had been talking to the White Sox. Not a three-team trade. Two trades of a star for a prospect trio. Which of course is kind of cool.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,421
|
Post by ianrs on Dec 16, 2015 22:07:29 GMT -5
The White Sox are a very stars-and-scrubs roster, and the one nice thing about a stars-and-scrubs roster is that if you manage to improve on some of those scrubs (by picking up a cheap fill-in who ends up being productive or if some of those scrubs have a minor breakout), you have a very high ceiling. The White Sox are projected to get less than a win's worth of production from SS, LF, RF, DH and the last two spots in their rotation-- if they get even a couple (good) surprises from those positions, they could well be a championship-level team. I actually really like this point. Replace Sale, Quintana and Rodon with Lester, Lackey, and Buchholz Replace Ortiz with Abreu, Ellsbury with Eaton, and Pedroia with Frazier... And it sounds like you're talking about the 2013 Red Sox. Add a couple low-end/shorter term/"scrap heap" FA signings that could still come for White Sox (Drew, Victorino, Napoli, Ross, Gomes, Koji, Dempster; side note: wow Ben signed a lot of guys that year) And a few unexpected breakout years (ala Mike Carp, Andrew Miller, the FA's above) White Sox could surprise some people this year.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 16, 2015 23:04:10 GMT -5
In this case, it seems likely that the Reds had no idea that, the whole times they were talking to the Dodgers, the Dodgers had been talking to the White Sox. Not a three-team trade. Two trades of a star for a prospect trio. This seems implausible to me. If the White Sox get a call from the Dodgers offering them Frazier, wouldn't it make a ton of sense for them to contact the team that actually controls Frazier? I mean you've got to at least check if you can get him cheaper directly rather than via the Dodgers, don't you?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,874
|
Post by nomar on Dec 16, 2015 23:28:13 GMT -5
Yeah that's not how three team trades work. All three sides see the trade before its finalized each way.
It's definitely possible the Reds would have rather given Frazier to the White Sox and told the Dodgers they'd have to give up more directly if they wanted Frazier.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 17, 2015 2:37:58 GMT -5
In this case, it seems likely that the Reds had no idea that, the whole times they were talking to the Dodgers, the Dodgers had been talking to the White Sox. Not a three-team trade. Two trades of a star for a prospect trio. This seems implausible to me. If the White Sox get a call from the Dodgers offering them Frazier, wouldn't it make a ton of sense for them to contact the team that actually controls Frazier? I mean you've got to at least check if you can get him cheaper directly rather than via the Dodgers, don't you? Yeah that's not how three team trades work. All three sides see the trade before its finalized each way. It's definitely possible the Reds would have rather given Frazier to the White Sox and told the Dodgers they'd have to give up more directly if they wanted Frazier. Good points, mostly. But nomar, you're last bit doesn't explain why the Reds didn't move him directly to the White Sox. So I still think that something funky must have happened, because it is so very odd ... It has to be two separate three-prospect-for-star trades, in terms of the negotiation. They are just vastly more common than prospect-for-prospect deals. The easiest explanation, although it seems to strain credulity, is that the Reds actually liked the Dodgers offer better. Since the Dodgers had the lesser need, they'd made what they thought was a lowball offer, saying "well, we could obviously use this guy, and if we can get him for this little it's a win, so why not give it a shot?" When it got accepted, they were smart enough to call around, and jumped on the opportunity to trade for the "losing" offer. The scenario where the Reds weren't stupid is this, and I think it's actually quite a bit more credible. They both put their bids in (the Dodgers again thinking it was a lowball bid), but the White Sox offer was not as good as what the eventually gave up, and the Dodgers won legitimately. Then the White Sox decided they had underbid, and call the Reds back to offer more. Too late; the deal with the Dodgers is official. They immediately call the Dodgers and offer them what they decided, too late, they should have final-offered the Reds in the first place. The Dodgers are looking at this luxury that they got for a bargain price, and gladly move him for an obviously better package of prospects. And since both the Reds and White Sox blundered a bit, what actually went down is not made public, because GMs don't want to embarrass one another. They announce it as a three-team trade, and the press reports it as such. (Even though Frazier was pretty obviously traded twice, separately.)
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 17, 2015 5:46:07 GMT -5
I don't think it is nearly that complicated.
The Reds really wanted Peraza. They were the aggressors and had a deal for him done in exchange for Chapman.
When that fell through, they made it clear to the Dodgers they were still interested in Peraza and offered Frazier. The Dodgers weren't interested in Frazier, but saw the surplus value in the offer so they agreed to help get a third team involved.
The result: the Reds overpaid because they were the aggressors and Peraza was the target not Frazier. The Dodgers get what appears to be an obvious value because they could have easily just walked. And the White Sox get a good deal because they were the third team in.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2015 8:27:47 GMT -5
The White Sox are a very stars-and-scrubs roster, and the one nice thing about a stars-and-scrubs roster is that if you manage to improve on some of those scrubs (by picking up a cheap fill-in who ends up being productive or if some of those scrubs have a minor breakout), you have a very high ceiling. The White Sox are projected to get less than a win's worth of production from SS, LF, RF, DH and the last two spots in their rotation-- if they get even a couple (good) surprises from those positions, they could well be a championship-level team. I actually really like this point. Replace Sale, Quintana and Rodon with Lester, Lackey, and Buchholz Replace Ortiz with Abreu, Ellsbury with Eaton, and Pedroia with Frazier... And it sounds like you're talking about the 2013 Red Sox. Add a couple low-end/shorter term/"scrap heap" FA signings that could still come for White Sox (Drew, Victorino, Napoli, Ross, Gomes, Koji, Dempster; side note: wow Ben signed a lot of guys that year) And a few unexpected breakout years (ala Mike Carp, Andrew Miller, the FA's above) White Sox could surprise some people this year. I actually don't think this makes sense... You don't win a WS with a bunch of scrubs at a bunch of positions. Even if one or two or three of those scrubs turn into ok players, you still have a bunch of scrubs and NO depth. If you are talking about signing low prices guys to replace most of the scrubs then getting lucky that the remaining guys aren't scrubs, then I misunderstood. The 2013 Red Sox had no scrubs, and a lot of depth. That's why they were good. I agree that you can see a big improvement in comparison to yourself with those circumstances. And that with a crappy division you may be able to win it. The best approach for that team is to do exactly what was suggested and sit back and wait for the dust to settle.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 17, 2015 10:30:33 GMT -5
And that with a crappy division you may be able to win it. And if you win your division you've already got 5-10% WS winning odds even if you're worse than all the other teams in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2015 10:51:17 GMT -5
Maybe we are splitting hairs here but he used the term "championship level team". To me that's different than saying they may be able to sneak into the playoff with a crappy division and strike gold when there.
The 2013 Red Sox may have had a lot go right but that was a talented team and a damn good one. The luck was probably good health from a group of players that shouldn't have been healthy at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2015 11:29:14 GMT -5
Some of these players who declined qualifying offers are going to get crushed by it. Desmond is obviously the biggest one. Guy turns down a 100m extension. Then has an awful hear both defensively and offensively then turns down 15m QO. How dumb can you get? See you mid season buddy... Unless a team like the Diamondbacks who don't care about draft picks snag him on the cheap.
Daniel Murphy.... Guy let the post season hype get to him.... Who's giving up a first rd pick and a big contract to a guy who's not that great to begin with? He will get signed but my guess is it's less AAV than the 15m he gave up and it's much lower than expected.
Kendrick is a nice player but 32... Wonder where his contract actually ends up.
Funny thing is Kendrick is better than Justin Upton based on WAR and Upton is expected to get way more then him, mostly due to name and age.
I'm very curious where these contracts actually come in. Especially Chris Davis after the Orioles backed out.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Dec 17, 2015 11:33:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2015 11:35:23 GMT -5
Wow I love the Dodgers failures...
No on the Sox... He's attached to a pick
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Dec 17, 2015 11:37:18 GMT -5
Wow I love the Dodgers failures... No on the Sox... He's attached to a pick Forgot about the pick. This is terrible news for his market. He may not sign till the draft.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2015 11:41:16 GMT -5
Wow I love the Dodgers failures... No on the Sox... He's attached to a pick Forgot about the pick. This is terrible news for his market. He may not sign till the draft. I bet the Mariners sign him now.
|
|
|