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.
Dreaming up an Athletics - Red Sox trade proposal
|
Post by jmei on Jul 26, 2015 17:05:38 GMT -5
So I don't think anyone thought Rodriguez was a back end of the top 100 guy. Rodriguez did not rank in the BA midseason top 50, Sickels' midseason top 75, or BP's midseason top 50 that year. He was generally ranked in the 60s at the start of that season (BA had him 65, BP had him 61) and was universally acknowledged to have seen his stock slip some. He was absolutely seen as a #75-100 type at the time of the trade.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 26, 2015 17:09:35 GMT -5
www.overthemonster.com/2014/7/31/5956483/red-sox-trade-andrew-miller-to-orioles Rodriguez, 21, was ranked by Baseball America, MLB.com, and "Baseball Prospectus as a top-100 prospect before the season began, falling into the 60-70 range in each list. 2014 has not gone entirely according to plan, with Rodriguez putting up a 4.79 ERA for the Double-A Bowie Baysox, but Rodriguez still has reasonable peripherals (69:29 K:BB in 83 innings) and is quite young to be starting in Double-A." Wouldn't being ranked 60-70 and then having a poor year = " a back end of the top 100 guy"? He was a top 30 guy to start the year not 60-70. Like I said many baseball writers and scouts said he was the best prospect traded during the deadline!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have provided links and sources-- please provide yours. He may have been one of the better prospects traded at the deadline, but only because that was the deadline where teams opted for major league talent rather than prospects (e.g., the Price, Lester, Lackey trades). If you will recall, there were lots of thought pieces written on the subject at the time.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 26, 2015 17:19:27 GMT -5
I think that package sounds a lot like the offer that got the Red Sox Adrian Gonzalez, who was a comparable talent but was four years older and just a year from free agency. In other words, not close to being enough to bring back one of the better pitchers in the AL with four cost-controlled seasons ahead of him. It is similar, but I think my current offer has better talent. If I remember right Raymond Fuentes was never ranked as a top 100 prospect. So your looking at 2 top 100 prospects compared to 3 top 100 prospects. Also the 4th player included would be a lot better in my trade idea. Also I think we can all agree that the value of prospects has gone way up in the almost 5 years since the Gonzalez trade.
Also how can you think a trade package that landed Gonzalez and produced a young star in Rizzo is a Miller or Donaldson trade? If you think its close but not just enough, that doesn't make it one of the most lop sided trades in recent memory as you put it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your proposed package is better, but it's not that much better (basically the difference between Guerra and Fuentes, which is something, but not a huge something), while Gray's contractual status makes him more valuable now than Gonzalez was back then by orders of magnitude. To illustrate, Sonny Gray ranked 15th on Dave Cameron's recent trade value piece, whereas Gonzalez did not crack the top fifty on the 2010 version of the list. If the value of prospects has gone way up since the Gonzalez trade, it follows that you'd need a bigger prospect package today than you did back then, which cuts against your argument and in favor of mine. My point is that your proposed package would be universally considered a significant underpay for a pitcher of Gray's caliber and contractual status, which is why it is like the Miller/Donaldson trades and unlikely to be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Jul 26, 2015 17:34:07 GMT -5
jmei said "...If the value of prospects has gone way up since the Gonzalez trade, it follows that you'd need a bigger prospect package today than you did back then, which cuts against your argument and in favor of mine..." I may be getting older but it seems to me this is backward. If prospects are more highly valued now than then fewer or lower caliber ones would be required to equal the same value as prior.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 26, 2015 17:37:06 GMT -5
www.overthemonster.com/2014/7/31/5956483/red-sox-trade-andrew-miller-to-orioles Rodriguez, 21, was ranked by Baseball America, MLB.com, and "Baseball Prospectus as a top-100 prospect before the season began, falling into the 60-70 range in each list. 2014 has not gone entirely according to plan, with Rodriguez putting up a 4.79 ERA for the Double-A Bowie Baysox, but Rodriguez still has reasonable peripherals (69:29 K:BB in 83 innings) and is quite young to be starting in Double-A." Wouldn't being ranked 60-70 and then having a poor year = " a back end of the top 100 guy"? He was a top 30 guy to start the year not 60-70. Like I said many baseball writers and scouts said he was the best prospect traded during the deadline!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because he was lights out for Portland and Pawtucket after the trade. He wasn't a top 30 guy when he was traded, not even close. If he was the best prospect traded at the deadline, then he was probably one of the only top 100 guys traded. What's with the exclamation points?
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,972
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 26, 2015 17:44:40 GMT -5
www.overthemonster.com/2014/7/31/5956483/red-sox-trade-andrew-miller-to-orioles Rodriguez, 21, was ranked by Baseball America, MLB.com, and "Baseball Prospectus as a top-100 prospect before the season began, falling into the 60-70 range in each list. 2014 has not gone entirely according to plan, with Rodriguez putting up a 4.79 ERA for the Double-A Bowie Baysox, but Rodriguez still has reasonable peripherals (69:29 K:BB in 83 innings) and is quite young to be starting in Double-A." Wouldn't being ranked 60-70 and then having a poor year = " a back end of the top 100 guy"? He was a top 30 guy to start the year not 60-70. Like I said many baseball writers and scouts said he was the best prospect traded during the deadline!!!!!!!!!!!!!! top 30 guy? source??? www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=rodrig006eduProspect Ratings by Baseball America: Pre-2014: Rated #65 Prospect Pre-2015: Rated #59 Prospect Prospect Ratings by MLB.com: Pre-2014: Rated #68 Prospect Pre-2015: Rated #89 Prospect Prospect Ratings by BaseballProspectus.com: Pre-2014: Rated #61 Prospect Pre-2015: Rated #65 Prospect
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Jul 26, 2015 17:49:14 GMT -5
Citing the most lopsided trade in recent history does much less to bolster your point than you think it does. LOL, this guy. I think it helps his point.
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Jul 26, 2015 17:53:27 GMT -5
So you think that Owens, Margot, Guerra and another lower prospect is an Miller or Donaldson trade? I just don't think that's true, that's currently 3 top 100 prospects and another low level guy with high upside. That is a fair package or very close to it. I think that package sounds a lot like the offer that got the Red Sox Adrian Gonzalez, who was a comparable talent but was four years older and just a year from free agency. In other words, not close to being enough to bring back one of the better pitchers in the AL with four cost-controlled seasons ahead of him. No it doesn't but keep showing links to make your sinking point. It sounds a lot like AG ? LOL ,but he was four years older and Owens, Margot and Guerra are top 100 while only Rizzo and Maybe Kelly was a top 100.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 26, 2015 18:16:05 GMT -5
The Miller trade was also a perfect storm. There were about 15 teams in on him and he was the only elite relief pitcher available.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 26, 2015 18:16:28 GMT -5
It is similar, but I think my current offer has better talent. If I remember right Raymond Fuentes was never ranked as a top 100 prospect. So your looking at 2 top 100 prospects compared to 3 top 100 prospects. Also the 4th player included would be a lot better in my trade idea. Also I think we can all agree that the value of prospects has gone way up in the almost 5 years since the Gonzalez trade.
Also how can you think a trade package that landed Gonzalez and produced a young star in Rizzo is a Miller or Donaldson trade? If you think its close but not just enough, that doesn't make it one of the most lop sided trades in recent memory as you put it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your proposed package is better, but it's not that much better (basically the difference between Guerra and Fuentes, which is something, but not a huge something), while Gray's contractual status makes him more valuable now than Gonzalez was back then by orders of magnitude. To illustrate, Sonny Gray ranked 15th on Dave Cameron's recent trade value piece, whereas Gonzalez did not crack the top fifty on the 2010 version of the list. If the value of prospects has gone way up since the Gonzalez trade, it follows that you'd need a bigger prospect package today than you did back then, which cuts against your argument and in favor of mine. My point is that your proposed package would be universally considered a significant underpay for a pitcher of Gray's caliber and contractual status, which is why it is like the Miller/Donaldson trades and unlikely to be accepted. The answer to all of this is for the Sox to maximize their haul of quality talent at this deadline (say, Napoli and Victorino each for low A-ball talents with upside outside of the top-100; Koji and *maybe* Tazawa and/or Holt for players in the 40-75 range, with perhaps added chips from the Sox to boost returning talent), and hope one of the lottery picks blossoms and the higher-end talent doesn't slip. I agree 100% regarding Gray vs. Gonzalez (AG was contracturally unpalatable to SD at the time, so their hand was forced some) and the years-of-control issue. But, a 15/40/70 return plus a buy-low guy like Cecchini probably gets it done. Oakland needs bodies, based on their revenue stream. They're the type of team that will want quality, but might sacrifice some quality for quantity in the second/third parts of the deal. Oakland is a very forgiving park, so Gray probably won't pitch so well in Fenway. Conversely, a guy like Johnson who has good command and doesn't walk batters, and knows how to pitch to contact might have more value to a team playing in a big park where strikeouts aren't so important. A speedy, quality defensive CF might hold a similar premium for them. Margot/Johnson is a 15/40 package roughly based on mid-season lists. Maybe we're under-rating their cache around baseball...especially Johnson, who has been viewed by many of us with some disdain since the day he was drafted. Javy Guerra has helium...maybe he or an acquisition piece from the deadline *could* be the third piece.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 26, 2015 18:17:10 GMT -5
I think that package sounds a lot like the offer that got the Red Sox Adrian Gonzalez, who was a comparable talent but was four years older and just a year from free agency. In other words, not close to being enough to bring back one of the better pitchers in the AL with four cost-controlled seasons ahead of him. No it doesn't but keep showing links to make your sinking point. It sounds a lot like AG ? LOL ,but he was four years older and Owens, Margot and Guerra are top 100 while only Rizzo and Maybe Kelly was a top 100. And Gray has 4 years of control, while Agon had 1 and shoulder issues. Gray's value is way higher. Then again, it's not 2011 anymore.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 26, 2015 18:41:02 GMT -5
I think that package sounds a lot like the offer that got the Red Sox Adrian Gonzalez, who was a comparable talent but was four years older and just a year from free agency. In other words, not close to being enough to bring back one of the better pitchers in the AL with four cost-controlled seasons ahead of him. No it doesn't but keep showing links to make your sinking point. It sounds a lot like AG ? LOL ,but he was four years older and Owens, Margot and Guerra are top 100 while only Rizzo and Maybe Kelly was a top 100. In 2011 (immediately after the Gonzalez trade), Casey Kelly was ranked 30th by BA and 48th by BP. Rizzo was 75 (BA) and 69 (BP). That's substantially similar to Margot (who was ranked 24 in the BA midseason top 50 (but remember that doesn't include draftees or players currently in the majors; by year-end, he should be around 30) and Owens (who looks like he'll be in the back half of the top 100). But please, if you'd prefer to continue to make **** up rather than citing to a source, please continue to do so.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 26, 2015 18:41:48 GMT -5
jmei said "...If the value of prospects has gone way up since the Gonzalez trade, it follows that you'd need a bigger prospect package today than you did back then, which cuts against your argument and in favor of mine..." I may be getting older but it seems to me this is backward. If prospects are more highly valued now than then fewer or lower caliber ones would be required to equal the same value as prior. You're right-- my mistake, point withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by thebrassbuckle1993 on Jul 26, 2015 20:46:43 GMT -5
No it doesn't but keep showing links to make your sinking point. It sounds a lot like AG ? LOL ,but he was four years older and Owens, Margot and Guerra are top 100 while only Rizzo and Maybe Kelly was a top 100. In 2011 (immediately after the Gonzalez trade), Casey Kelly was ranked 30th by BA and 48th by BP. Rizzo was 75 (BA) and 69 (BP). That's substantially similar to Margot (who was ranked 24 in the BA midseason top 50 (but remember that doesn't include draftees or players currently in the majors; by year-end, he should be around 30) and Owens (who looks like he'll be in the back half of the top 100). But please, if you'd prefer to continue to make **** up rather than citing to a source, please continue to do so. www.overthemonster.com/2015/7/16/8978311/keith-law-red-sox-prospects-yoan-moncadaGoing based on Rizzo's ranking, that would be low for Owens at the end of the year. Margot will be ranked between 30-48 at worst. Yes, I could be wrong but i'll bet on Margot, and Guerra will wind up somewhere in the top 100. Those three together are clearly better than Kelly, Fuentes, and Rizzo. You would need more, but that core of three players in a 5-1 deal for Gray is reasonable to start trade talks. With the Oakland stadium situation, their record, and the ongoing replenishing of their farm system, it's an intriguing possibility.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 20:51:36 GMT -5
For one the most lopsided trade in recent memory was the Andrew Miller trade, without question. When the trade was made last year, Rodriguez (who was a top 30 prospect at the beginning of last year) had regressed. His velocity had backed up and he had some control issues. He was probably a back-end-of-the-top-100 prospect at the time of the trade. The Red Sox made the call that his issues were fixable, and they were right. So, I would not put the Miller-for-Rodriguez trade in the same category as some of the other trades mentioned in this subforum. My source was a Mod on this site that said he was top 30!
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 26, 2015 20:53:06 GMT -5
My mistake on that factoid, then. The more salient points stand, though.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 26, 2015 21:02:01 GMT -5
Keith Law had Rodriguez ranked 43rd on his top 100 to start the year in 2014
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Jul 26, 2015 22:29:46 GMT -5
No it doesn't but keep showing links to make your sinking point. It sounds a lot like AG ? LOL ,but he was four years older and Owens, Margot and Guerra are top 100 while only Rizzo and Maybe Kelly was a top 100. In 2011 (immediately after the Gonzalez trade), Casey Kelly was ranked 30th by BA and 48th by BP. Rizzo was 75 (BA) and 69 (BP). That's substantially similar to Margot (who was ranked 24 in the BA midseason top 50 (but remember that doesn't include draftees or players currently in the majors; by year-end, he should be around 30) and Owens (who looks like he'll be in the back half of the top 100). But please, if you'd prefer to continue to make **** up rather than citing to a source, please continue to do so. I said they were both in the top 100, so I didn't make anything up. Or are you having a problem reading. But the package of Margot, Guerra and Owens is clearly more appealing than the Rizzo, Kelly and Fuentes, top 100 or not. Anyone that knows about baseball knows this and no one expected Rizzo to be this good. And even though I do not agree with your points most times because you're know it all number cruncher, jack of all trades please refrain from using any 4 letter words when you disagree with anything I say, cause I don't do that with you. I know how you guys like to warn people for any confrontational responses.
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Jul 26, 2015 22:31:23 GMT -5
In 2011 (immediately after the Gonzalez trade), Casey Kelly was ranked 30th by BA and 48th by BP. Rizzo was 75 (BA) and 69 (BP). That's substantially similar to Margot (who was ranked 24 in the BA midseason top 50 (but remember that doesn't include draftees or players currently in the majors; by year-end, he should be around 30) and Owens (who looks like he'll be in the back half of the top 100). But please, if you'd prefer to continue to make **** up rather than citing to a source, please continue to do so. www.overthemonster.com/2015/7/16/8978311/keith-law-red-sox-prospects-yoan-moncadaGoing based on Rizzo's ranking, that would be low for Owens at the end of the year. Margot will be ranked between 30-48 at worst. Yes, I could be wrong but i'll bet on Margot, and Guerra will wind up somewhere in the top 100. Those three together are clearly better than Kelly, Fuentes, and Rizzo. You would need more, but that core of three players in a 5-1 deal for Gray is reasonable to start trade talks. With the Oakland stadium situation, their record, and the ongoing replenishing of their farm system, it's an intriguing possibility. Great Point.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 27, 2015 6:08:01 GMT -5
Keith Law had Rodriguez ranked 43rd on his top 100 to start the year in 2014 And then he was terrible up until the trade.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2015 11:20:58 GMT -5
Keith Law had Rodriguez ranked 43rd on his top 100 to start the year in 2014 And then he was terrible up until the trade. You guys are so funny. What was terrible about his performance in double A at 21 years old? His ERA? Sure its wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible. His strikeout to walk numbers were not that bad at all. You wanna say he was not as good as expect or he was not that good or he was so so I can go along with that, but terrible is the wrong word, as for his age and advanced level he was not terrible
For one not sure how this got started, where a prospect was ranked when he was traded means anything in the way the trade is looked at a year later. The Andrew Miller trade is the most lopsided trade in recent memory. I don't care if Rodriguez was ranked #199 when he was traded. Less then a year later he is in the big leagues showing signs that he could become a future #1 starter, that we have control over for the next 6 years. Baltimore got two months of Andrew Miller and nothing else.
Keith Law had Henry Owens at #20 to start the season, there is no way he is close to the back of the top 100 with the season he has had. At age 22 in triple A he has a 3.25 era, 1.14 whip, 100 strikeouts in 116.1 innings. Sure he has 55 walks, but over the last month plus he has learned to fix those problems. Hitters in 2015 are hitting .190 against him and have a .586 OPS, he is as unhittable as he has always been. So you really think those numbers make him drop 55 or more spots on the top 100? I would say at worst he drops into the 40-50 range, which is not a backend top 100 prospect.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,790
|
Post by nomar on Jul 27, 2015 11:43:46 GMT -5
So how about that Sonny Gray guy?
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 27, 2015 14:39:46 GMT -5
I think I'd be pretty content with Owens, Swihart and Guerra for Gray, and I don't think that proposal gets laughed at by Beane. I'd be happier dealing Swihart than Margot, just because Swihart seems like he probably is going to take a couple of years to figure out catching fully, and Vazquez will probably be better for at least the near future. I also think Margot's path is much clearer. In two years, I can easily see a Margot/Mookie/Bradley OF, which would have to be one of the rangiest outfield groups ever, and I think we've seen how much of a difference good outfield defense can make to a team/pitching staff (look at the Royals and O's).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2015 15:35:35 GMT -5
I think I'd be pretty content with Owens, Swihart and Guerra for Gray, and I don't think that proposal gets laughed at by Beane. I'd be happier dealing Swihart than Margot, just because Swihart seems like he probably is going to take a couple of years to figure out catching fully, and Vazquez will probably be better for at least the near future. I also think Margot's path is much clearer. In two years, I can easily see a Margot/Mookie/Bradley OF, which would have to be one of the rangiest outfield groups ever, and I think we've seen how much of a difference good outfield defense can make to a team/pitching staff (look at the Royals and O's). You can't trade Swihart because you have Vazquez. I'm not sure that Vazquez hits enough to be a regular player. Sure he is elite on D and catching skills, based on his minor league #'s he's not a very good hitter. If Vazquez had played this year and done well I would consider a deal like this, but that didn't happen. An argument can be made that Swihart has more value over the next 6 years then Gray has. The reason is simple there is very little catcher in the majors right now!
If it comes down to Margot or Swihart it's such any easy choice you trade Margot every single time. Margot is the most overrated prospect we have and truly hope we sell high on him! When you have Betts and Bradley that's what makes trading Margot so easy.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Jul 27, 2015 15:53:22 GMT -5
I think I'd be pretty content with Owens, Swihart and Guerra for Gray, and I don't think that proposal gets laughed at by Beane. I'd be happier dealing Swihart than Margot, just because Swihart seems like he probably is going to take a couple of years to figure out catching fully, and Vazquez will probably be better for at least the near future. I also think Margot's path is much clearer. In two years, I can easily see a Margot/Mookie/Bradley OF, which would have to be one of the rangiest outfield groups ever, and I think we've seen how much of a difference good outfield defense can make to a team/pitching staff (look at the Royals and O's). You can't trade Swihart because you have Vazquez. I'm not sure that Vazquez hits enough to be a regular player. Sure he is elite on D and catching skills, based on his minor league #'s he's not a very good hitter. If Vazquez had played this year and done well I would consider a deal like this, but that didn't happen. An argument can be made that Swihart has more value over the next 6 years then Gray has. The reason is simple there is very little catcher in the majors right now!
If it comes down to Margot or Swihart it's such any easy choice you trade Margot every single time. Margot is the most overrated prospect we have and truly hope we sell high on him! When you have Betts and Bradley that's what makes trading Margot so easy.
Agreed. Swihart's perceived value to some on this board is way to low. Guys like this who can catch just don't come around very often and he could be worth more than Gray by himself soon. Like next year or the year after. Would be willing to be Sox are far more interested in getting Vazquez's value as high as possible and that he is the one who gets traded once healthy. Think Swihart is the long term catcher for us from now on and think we are pretty fortunate.
|
|
|