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.
Royals considering Myers-for-Lester trade
|
Post by bluechip on Nov 27, 2012 20:38:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Nov 27, 2012 20:41:40 GMT -5
History is also littered with pitchers who peak in the first few years of their careers and steadily decline. Can anyone guarantee that Lester will become an elite pitcher again? We can do this from both sides. Even the best trades on paper can fail miserably due to fluke events. Naming Delmon Young is a good reminder of the uncertainty in prospect projection, but he is the outlier here, and it's equally important to remember that. Serious question, can you provide some examples?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,754
|
Post by nomar on Nov 27, 2012 20:43:27 GMT -5
Isnt it a concern that theyre willing to deal Myers like his? Maybe they know something about him that leads them to think he may bust.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Nov 27, 2012 20:56:04 GMT -5
Isnt it a concern that theyre willing to deal Myers like his? Maybe they know something about him that leads them to think he may bust. Dayton Moore's job is on the line. They also have a strong lineup and weak pitching. By dangling a potential star in Myers he can get a lot better return than he could on Billy Butler. If Meyers is the cost of the Royals being in contention in the AL Central then kiss young Wil goodbye.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Nov 27, 2012 20:58:28 GMT -5
One interesting note: BIll James projects very similar numbers for Lester & Lackey. That could be telling when considering how the sox view Lester long-term. In regards to Abraham, he is bent on acquiring pitching. He and others fail to realize that if u deal pitching, you have 3 months to get more. I would be happy with adding Aceves to the rotation and signing a SP if Lester is dealt. No. Just no.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Nov 27, 2012 21:07:29 GMT -5
History is also littered with pitchers who peak in the first few years of their careers and steadily decline. Can anyone guarantee that Lester will become an elite pitcher again? We can do this from both sides. Even the best trades on paper can fail miserably due to fluke events. Naming Delmon Young is a good reminder of the uncertainty in prospect projection, but he is the outlier here, and it's equally important to remember that. Disagree. Average players by their name are the most common result. It's the profound disappointment (Brien Taylor, Matt Bush) or the huge success (Evan Longoria) that is the outlier. I do agree that it's no guarantee that Lester returns to form, however.
|
|
|
Post by lloydbraun on Nov 27, 2012 21:16:06 GMT -5
One interesting note: BIll James projects very similar numbers for Lester & Lackey. That could be telling when considering how the sox view Lester long-term. In regards to Abraham, he is bent on acquiring pitching. He and others fail to realize that if u deal pitching, you have 3 months to get more. I would be happy with adding Aceves to the rotation and signing a SP if Lester is dealt. No. Just no. Aceves has nasty stuff. Wait and see...
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Nov 27, 2012 21:23:52 GMT -5
i'd hang on to lester for at least one more year and see what hes got. he can't get any worse and can only get better. he is under team control for 2 more years and he is bound for a rebound, especially with farrell, his former pitching coach, as the skipper Are you willing to wager Wil Myers on that?
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Nov 27, 2012 21:31:11 GMT -5
History is also littered with pitchers who peak in the first few years of their careers and steadily decline. Can anyone guarantee that Lester will become an elite pitcher again? We can do this from both sides. Even the best trades on paper can fail miserably due to fluke events. Naming Delmon Young is a good reminder of the uncertainty in prospect projection, but he is the outlier here, and it's equally important to remember that. Serious question, can you provide some examples? Right off the top of my head Kerry Wood and Bartolo Colon come to mind. Freddy Garcia at one point early on was kind of nasty. Especially against us. Mike Hampton although some will blame Colorado. Maybe Tim Lincecum, Barry Zito and Mark Mulder.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 27, 2012 21:32:21 GMT -5
Aceves can also be nasty stuff. He didn't seem to care for it much when Bailey returned to take back the closer's role last year.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Nov 27, 2012 21:40:37 GMT -5
Aceves has nasty stuff. Wait and see... Aceves is a mediocre pitcher with average stuff and an attitude problem. His ability to throw multiple innings, several days in a row, makes him a valuable middle reliever/swing man, but he's really nothing more than that (and hopefully he can be that for some other team next year).
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 27, 2012 21:41:29 GMT -5
Aceves can also be nasty stuff. He didn't seem to care for it much when Bailey returned to take back the closer's role last year. You mean after he won a rotation slot in spring training and they gave it to Bard instead with disastrous results and Aceves stepped up and took on the closer's role and then got dumped into middle relief?
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Nov 27, 2012 21:48:19 GMT -5
Serious question, can you provide some examples? Right off the top of my head Kerry Wood and Bartolo Colon come to mind. Freddy Garcia at one point early on was kind of nasty. Especially against us. Mike Hampton although some will blame Colorado. Maybe Tim Lincecum, Barry Zito and Mark Mulder. I would argue most of these guys were good for more than a few years.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 27, 2012 21:54:03 GMT -5
History is also littered with pitchers who peak in the first few years of their careers and steadily decline. Can anyone guarantee that Lester will become an elite pitcher again? We can do this from both sides. Even the best trades on paper can fail miserably due to fluke events. Naming Delmon Young is a good reminder of the uncertainty in prospect projection, but he is the outlier here, and it's equally important to remember that. Disagree. Average players by their name are the most common result. It's the profound disappointment (Brien Taylor, Matt Bush) or the huge success (Evan Longoria) that is the outlier. I do agree that it's no guarantee that Lester returns to form, however. Brien Taylor and Matt Bush are nothing like 2012 Wil Myers, it's just a pointless comparison. Taylor was a pitcher with arm injuries who never made the majors, and he busted when I was like 5 years old and prospect projection was much different. Matt Bush had a whole different set of problems, again was a pitcher, and never "busted" at the MLB level. Wil Myers is just about MLB ready and has consistently excelled, those guys were raw talents and never really came close to having the MLB ready value Myers has. All prospects aren't created equal. Guys who are widely regarded as the best hitting prospects in baseball usually become impact players. I've already given the imperfect sample of the other Baseball America Player of the Year winners from the past 20 years, and Young IS the clear outlier. All top ~30 prospects from any given year aren't comparable, my sample is flawed too but it's closer to the type of talent we're talking about. If Myers was an 18 year old kid who was a raw talent who just got his feet wet in A ball we could have the Bush conversation. He's not. He's not bust proof, but the most likely scenario is him becoming at least an above average corner outfielder. For the record, Xander has a bigger chance of busting than Wil Myers, and I doubt anyone here would deal him for the equivalent of Jon Lester.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 27, 2012 22:01:21 GMT -5
Aceves can also be nasty stuff. He didn't seem to care for it much when Bailey returned to take back the closer's role last year. You mean after he won a rotation slot in spring training and they gave it to Bard instead with disastrous results and Aceves stepped up and took on the closer's role and then got dumped into middle relief? The operative word is role. People get shuffled around all the time in baseball. Bitching about it doesn't do squat for you or the team.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Nov 27, 2012 22:01:49 GMT -5
Ouch (Is this because I referred to your version of WAR calculation as "fun with numbers"? It was just a joke, brother) Seriously though, you're leaning heavily on his development into a top-10 hitter with that calculation. History is littered with prospects who didn't make it at all or simply developed into competent players. Delmon Young, similar numbers achieved at an earlier age, more highly regarded by evaluators, and Lester's crappy year last year almost eclipses Young's career WAR. I'll buy the Dunkin coffee for the trip to the airport to pick up Myers if someone could guarantee he's the next Braun, Ramirez, etc after exchanging him for Lester. That being said, I am willing to assume the risk of such an exchange if fate bestows a winning Powerball jackpot on me tomorrow......I'll hedge that risk by signing Greinke with part of my winnings, but I'll be with you just the same. EDIT: For those worried about Lester's velocity, it took until about halfway through Farrell's introductory presser for him to identify a mechanical flaw that plagued Lester after he left. I'm willing to bet he thinks he can fix what ails Lester. He isn't. Unless my memory fails me entirely, that number is for a top-10 hitting prospect. As in, one of the top-10 prospects among hitters. Not a top-10 hitter in the league.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 27, 2012 22:11:42 GMT -5
History is also littered with pitchers who peak in the first few years of their careers and steadily decline. Can anyone guarantee that Lester will become an elite pitcher again? We can do this from both sides. Even the best trades on paper can fail miserably due to fluke events. Naming Delmon Young is a good reminder of the uncertainty in prospect projection, but he is the outlier here, and it's equally important to remember that. Serious question, can you provide some examples? I could, but I don't have time to make a large enough sample to have it mean something, I feel like tossing in the first 10 or so that come to mind would lead to a pointless sample, and people could rightfully pick unusual circumstances or injuries for a few. Sorry if it sounds like a cop out. For the record, I think most pitchers peak around age 27, but each pitcher develops/declines at different stages based on injuries/skill set/unique personal factors. Lincecum is a good recent comparable, he could be had and is an elite guy in his theoretical prime, but for many reasons his best days are probably behind him. Most people could point to his unique delivery and be correct, which is why I'd need a bigger sample to prove a point. The point I'm making is pitcher primes are really based on a lot of factors and aren't as predictable as hitter primes. The volatility of pitching has a lot to do with the unnatural motion of throwing a baseball the way pitchers do, and even the injuries you play through can effect your velocity/stuff. Lester isn't doomed, but he wouldn't be the first pitcher to have his prime in his early to mid 20s, just like Myers wouldn't be the first top prospect to bust. We should recognize individual factors determine human events, there is no flawless all in one projection system.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Nov 27, 2012 22:35:43 GMT -5
He isn't. Unless my memory fails me entirely, that number is for a top-10 hitting prospect. As in, one of the top-10 prospects among hitters. Not a top-10 hitter in the league. Gotcha, I've downloaded the paper to read through it deeper. Appreciate you pointing that out. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 27, 2012 23:19:54 GMT -5
I mean, the Victor Wang analysis is an average of all hitting prospects who ranked in BA's top 10 list across ten years, which mathematically takes into account the busts, the stars, and everyone in between. His breakdown was that it was roughly 10% busts, 50% contributors, 25% everyday starters, and 15% stars. The more significant point is that three years of the MLB minimum and three years of 40/60/80% of free market cost means even a borderline starter provides millions of surplus value. For instance, even if Myers busts and ends up no better than Jonny Gomes, he'll still be paid only 30% of what he'd be worth on the FA market over the course of six years, which is tremendous even to a big-market team like the Red Sox. I suppose if we're being precise, you might also want a risk premium since you're right that Myers' expected return involves a much wider range of probabilities than Lester's. But even taking that into account, I'm pretty confident that any holistic quantitative analysis comes out well in favor of Myers. Indeed, I came across this updated version of Wang's study using BA rankings from 1994-2003 that show that over those years, surplus value for a top-10 hitting prospect was $42.2m as opposed to $36.5m. The authors hypothesize that the increase in value is caused by teams relying more on top prospect than they have in the past (thus causing them to produce more value in their team-controlled years than in the past) and because BA has improved its ranking methodology (for instance, more access to scouting reports or a more accurate understanding of how prospects project at the MLB level). The above certainly doesn't mean rankings are infallible-- if you check out the BA top 100 archives, you still see a reasonable number of recent busts (Montero was #3 in 2011 and #4 in 2010, Travis Snider was #6 in 2009, Brandon Wood was #3 and Jeremy Hermida was #4 in 2006). And Myers' strikeouts do give him some bust potential. But again, as a whole and on average, top-10 hitting prospects tend to be very good MLB players. Sidenote: since we have a specific player here to discuss, we don't have to deal in generalities. I'd love to read good analyses of Myers' game, so if you come across any, please feel free to post.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Nov 27, 2012 23:37:40 GMT -5
This post is going to soound really obvious, but anyway...
All players are risks. Who would have though Carl Crawford would fall off the face of the planet? Or that Adrian Gonzalez would stop hitting home runs. At the end of the day you make a judge about the risk of busting versus the potential value. Some of the best trades in history were risky MLB regulars for unproven prospects: Delino DeShields for Pedro Martinez; Larry Anderson for Jeff Bargwell, ect...
I have no problem trading an MLB regular for a top prospect.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 27, 2012 23:49:51 GMT -5
The above certainly doesn't mean rankings are infallible-- if you check out the BA top 100 archives, you still see a reasonable number of recent busts (Montero was #3 in 2011 and #4 in 2010, Travis Snider was #6 in 2009, Brandon Wood was #3 and Jeremy Hermida was #4 in 2006). And Myers' strikeouts do give him some bust potential. But again, as a whole and on average, top-10 hitting prospects tend to be very good MLB players. And even within that small group, Wood had a huge season in the low minors, and I think it's way too early to call Montero a bust - in his age 22 season, he hit .295/.330/.438 on the road, which would be nicer if he wasn't a DH but is still pretty good. Hermida's career arc is/was very strange. He had a nice age-23 season, took a step backwards at age 24, and then he basically stopped doing anything well. Just a massive deterioration of skills that there's really no explanation for.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 28, 2012 0:02:08 GMT -5
I think the majority of the top prospect "busts" were players early in their development who ranked high based on raw talent and pedigree heading into their draft/signing. The large majority of the top hitting prospects from the past ~20 years who maintained/earned a high ranking at an advanced setting generally became at least average regulars, and the truly elite ranked guys (MiLB POY) overwhelming become impact players. People discuss "prospects" like any minor leaguer is hypothetical and the bust factor is equal. A prospect in low A or the DSL is far different than a Wil Myers. I wouldn't call this trade a "no brainer", that would be dismissive of Lester's talent, but if it's obtainable with some reasonable side considerations I'd really love to see it happen.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 28, 2012 8:13:47 GMT -5
I think the majority of the top prospect "busts" were players early in their development who ranked high based on raw talent and pedigree heading into their draft/signing. The large majority of the top hitting prospects from the past ~20 years who maintained/earned a high ranking at an advanced setting generally became at least average regulars, and the truly elite ranked guys (MiLB POY) overwhelming become impact players. People discuss "prospects" like any minor leaguer is hypothetical and the bust factor is equal. A prospect in low A or the DSL is far different than a Wil Myers. I wouldn't call this trade a "no brainer", that would be dismissive of Lester's talent, but if it's obtainable with some reasonable side considerations I'd really love to see it happen. Totally agree. Comping guys based on prospect status is just silly. Myers has nothing in common with, say, Joel Guzman. If people want to make predictions based on other players, find similar players with similar stats at similar levels at similar ages, etc, and see how those guys did.
|
|
|
Post by lloydbraun on Nov 28, 2012 8:29:30 GMT -5
Aceves has nasty stuff. Wait and see... Aceves is a mediocre pitcher with average stuff and an attitude problem. His ability to throw multiple innings, several days in a row, makes him a valuable middle reliever/swing man, but he's really nothing more than that (and hopefully he can be that for some other team next year). I must disagree. Aceves has nasty stuff. 4 above average pitchers. Attitude? Sure, but it bubbled over due to an idiotic manager.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 28, 2012 8:43:05 GMT -5
Aceves is a mediocre pitcher with average stuff and an attitude problem. His ability to throw multiple innings, several days in a row, makes him a valuable middle reliever/swing man, but he's really nothing more than that (and hopefully he can be that for some other team next year). I must disagree. Aceves has nasty stuff. 4 above average pitchers. Attitude? Sure, but it bubbled over due to an idiotic manager. Can you describe these "four above-average pitches?" I'm curious. You realize that a pitcher with four above-average pitches should be at or near the top of a major league rotation, right?
|
|
|