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.
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 12, 2015 17:34:50 GMT -5
Brian, jmei, Let me complicate things. Last weekend, I introduced the hypothesis that when you trade prospects for veterans you are trading two future wins for each present win you acquire. I have spent a fair amount time this week validating this hypothesis (if anyone is interested I would be happy to write a longer post on the subject with data this weekend). I have identified between 30 and 50 prospect for veteran trades since 2002 in which at least one significant player switched teams (30 to 50 reflects the range in reasonable definitions of significant). Two to one seems to be a reasonable conservative estimate of the exchange rate. With that relationship in mind, does it change whom you would be willing to trade? What drives this relationship iseems to be over-estimation of the risk associated with prospects. I believe JBJ's most likely future is the one suggested by his high OBP occasional power profile in AAA. I think his most likely future is as a 2.5 to 3.5 WAR player with 5 years of remaining control. I also think he will age well. I think he has as much chance of being better than this as being worse. Do you think there is any chance the Red Sox could achieve a return similar to that for JBJ? As a thought exercise what do you think he will be and what kind of return do you think the Red Sox could get? Wait what? Maybe I'm not interpreting this right, but you're trying to draw a correlation between a teams record present and future to one-time trades? Completely ignoring all the other happenings that involve the massive amounts of other players on the rosters? Huh? Or are you talking about WAR? It's not some shock that guys with more controllable years can get higher WAR totals than guys under control for shorter periods.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 12, 2015 20:54:03 GMT -5
Interesting comment by Keith Law about Dombrowski in his chat today: Marshall: A team like Detroit seems to be stuck in a sort of purgatory – not going to win their division, not many good prospects, aging players signed to long contracts. Do they keep spending until the wheels fall off of Miggy, or make everyone (including Miggy) available right now? Klaw: Sounds like they’ll spend to patch the major-league roster now while slowly trying to build the system back up. Dombrowski viewed the farm strictly as currency for trades. Avila views it as a real farm system, one that should produce players for the major-league roster too. Granted, Dombrowski had a somewhat different charge when he was in Detroit, but counterweight is that this is the Dave Dombrowski that John Henry fired a GM he'd just signed to a long term deal to get. And it's Law's perception, but he knows Dombrowski better than any of us here (unless someone's been holding out) having dealt with him in a front office position and spoken to him over the years via the ESPN position. You seem to be have desire to bend everything negative RE Dombrowski. He sure did have a different charge when he was with Detroit. He also built strong farm systems with the Marlins and the Expos. Everyone thought he would gut the front office, he hasn't. Will he trade prospects. Quite likely. Will he gut the farm system. Highly unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 12, 2015 21:07:37 GMT -5
This whole "everyone thought he'd gut the FO" is such a strawman. Who exactly wrote that? What the reasoned crowd worried about is that he would bring in old-school types to serve as his retinue - which he did (Wren), and continue to rely on his "gut" as opposed to data-driven decisions.
Sure, he kept Hazen but he didn't have to make a choice, because of Henry's willingness to pay for a large and expensive FO; and unless you know that's he listening to Hazen more than Wren (hint: you don't), you can't draw any conclusions from his, so far, inactivity.
We'll see; skepticism is the hallmark of a quick and active mind
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Nov 12, 2015 22:41:22 GMT -5
Wait what? Maybe I'm not interpreting this right, but you're trying to draw a correlation between a teams record present and future to one-time trades? Completely ignoring all the other happenings that involve the massive amounts of other players on the rosters? Huh? Or are you talking about WAR? It's not some shock that guys with more controllable years can get higher WAR totals than guys under control for shorter periods. I thought I was clear: trading prospects for veterans is an extremely inefficient way of acquiring talent. Doing it occasionally is probably required. Doing it as often the as the Red Sox do it will eventually catch up with you.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 12, 2015 22:51:25 GMT -5
This whole "everyone thought he'd gut the FO" is such a strawman. Who exactly wrote that? What the reasoned crowd worried about is that he would bring in old-school types to serve as his retinue - which he did (Wren), and continue to rely on his "gut" as opposed to data-driven decisions. Sure, he kept Hazen but he didn't have to make a choice, because of Henry's willingness to pay for a large and expensive FO; and unless you know that's he listening to Hazen more than Wren (hint: you don't), you can't draw any conclusions from his, so far, inactivity. We'll see; skepticism is the hallmark of a quick and active mind "This is a total house cleaning job... I wouldn't hold my breath on any significant members of the front office remaining" - forum.soxprospects.com/post/164408/thread
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 12, 2015 23:42:42 GMT -5
Thanks for tracking that down.
We all get on the emotional roller coaster and ride it up and down and up and down every once in a while. It's the fan thing. Some of us even use our keyboards for instant stream of consciousness posts. I think that was evident in the initial reaction to the Dombrowski hire.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 13, 2015 1:44:34 GMT -5
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Margot's approach vs. Bradley's makes Margot project as the better hitter. I'm just saying that when you get to the post-season and face elite pitching, Margot loses less of his game than Bradley, and that therefore, relative to even a reasonably sophisticated assessment, Margot has a bit more value. I agree that dealing JBJ and keeping Margot seems likely to be a downgrade in CF, but if you're getting relatively more for Bradley (relative to true value), plus paying Margot a lot less, plus being set in CF with a good player for several more years, trading JBJ might well make sense. I don't seem to understand your way of thinking. When you face elite pitching you want your best hitters out there. I think everyone will agree that at this point Bradley is a much better hitter then Margot. How does Margot lose less of him game then Bradley? If Margot could turn his less strikeouts into a better on base % you might have a point, but I don't think Margot has better on base skills then Bradley. Only when runners are on base does a ground out or pop out differ from a strikeout.
As for trading Bradley because you have Margot and he's only a slight drop off, I just don't agree. For one Margot is not even close to ready. I don't see him as an option this year, next year maybe but not this year. He has yet to play a game at triple A. Second I just see Bradley as a much better player. He is a better hitter, better defender, better on base skills and has shown more power. Only thing Margot does better is run the bases.
You seem to be in love with Margot's upside and not the player he currently is.
Elite pitchers level the field in terms of what opposing hitters can do off of them. On the flipside of that, many elite hitters do a disproportionate amount of their damage against subpar pitching. As a result, if a guy like Bradley is 25% better overall as a hitter than Margot, that may be 35% better against subpar pitchers and 10% better versus elite pitchers (especially strikeout pitchers). As a result, in the postseason you're a better team with Margot plus what you can get in trade for Bradley judged as he hits against average pitching, than with Bradley plus what you can get for Margot, ditto. And this observation is merely part of an argument that you might want to hang on to both Benintendi and Margot for another year even though there appears to be only one opening in the OF for them, based on the possibility that Margot will develop as a hitter as many people suspect he will. It has nothing to do whatsoever with their skill at present. I might point out that I have been a leading advocate for not trading JBJ this winter and a leading advocate that Margot is a prime trade chip. I'm just outlining one possible scenario where you're glad you hung on to both. (Edit: rereading your earlier replies, it seems like you may have completely missed my "eventually" and "two years from now" qualifiers when talking about trading JBJ to make room for Margot.)
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 13, 2015 8:44:10 GMT -5
Interesting comment by Keith Law about Dombrowski in his chat today: Marshall: A team like Detroit seems to be stuck in a sort of purgatory – not going to win their division, not many good prospects, aging players signed to long contracts. Do they keep spending until the wheels fall off of Miggy, or make everyone (including Miggy) available right now? Klaw: Sounds like they’ll spend to patch the major-league roster now while slowly trying to build the system back up. Dombrowski viewed the farm strictly as currency for trades. Avila views it as a real farm system, one that should produce players for the major-league roster too. Granted, Dombrowski had a somewhat different charge when he was in Detroit, but counterweight is that this is the Dave Dombrowski that John Henry fired a GM he'd just signed to a long term deal to get. And it's Law's perception, but he knows Dombrowski better than any of us here (unless someone's been holding out) having dealt with him in a front office position and spoken to him over the years via the ESPN position. You seem to be have desire to bend everything negative RE Dombrowski. He sure did have a different charge when he was with Detroit. He also built strong farm systems with the Marlins and the Expos. Everyone thought he would gut the front office, he hasn't. Will he trade prospects. Quite likely. Will he gut the farm system. Highly unlikely. No interest in bending. Just offering addition commentary by someone who knows him better than us. I don't personally think he'll gut the system, nor did I say that here.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 13, 2015 20:37:31 GMT -5
You seem to be have desire to bend everything negative RE Dombrowski. He sure did have a different charge when he was with Detroit. He also built strong farm systems with the Marlins and the Expos. Everyone thought he would gut the front office, he hasn't. Will he trade prospects. Quite likely. Will he gut the farm system. Highly unlikely. No interest in bending. Just offering addition commentary by someone who knows him better than us. I don't personally think he'll gut the system, nor did I say that here. OK, can I take that bac?...
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 14, 2015 2:32:35 GMT -5
Well, so far, he's traded the guys the board thought he would trade, the talent that was largely blocked. I think the argument is that it was lopsided, not that he gutted the system, unless I'm missing something.
As of right now, Moncada, Devers, Espinoza and Benintendi are still on the farm, along with Kopech and a few other lottery tickets. Those four are, to my mind, the "guts" of the system, the players that will be needed as spots open up. So it hasn't been disembowled, and he did say that was the big trade.
Let's see if he can hold that thought over the off-season.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 14, 2015 3:40:59 GMT -5
Well, so far, he's traded the guys the board thought he would trade, the talent that was largely blocked. I think the argument is that it was lopsided, not that he gutted the system, unless I'm missing something. As of right now, Moncada, Devers, Espinoza and Benintendi are still on the farm, along with Kopech and a few other lottery tickets. Those four are, to my mind, the "guts" of the system, the players that will be needed as spots open up. So it hasn't been disembowled, and he did say that was the big trade. Let's see if he can hold that thought over the off-season. Exactly. It's not who was traded, it's who's coming back. If we'd gotten 4 years of Danny Salazar for this package instead of three years of Craig Kimbrel, folks would have been applauding. And if it would have taken Chavis or Longhi instead of Asauje, folks still would have been applauding.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 14, 2015 9:30:07 GMT -5
Well, so far, he's traded the guys the board thought he would trade, the talent that was largely blocked. I think the argument is that it was lopsided, not that he gutted the system, unless I'm missing something. As of right now, Moncada, Devers, Espinoza and Benintendi are still on the farm, along with Kopech and a few other lottery tickets. Those four are, to my mind, the "guts" of the system, the players that will be needed as spots open up. So it hasn't been disembowled, and he did say that was the big trade. Let's see if he can hold that thought over the off-season. Exactly. It's not who was traded, it's who's coming back. If we'd gotten 4 years of Danny Salazar for this package instead of three years of Craig Kimbrel, folks would have been applauding. And if it would have taken Chavis or Longhi instead of Asauje, folks still would have been applauding. Agreed. It's all about the return.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 15, 2015 18:56:55 GMT -5
I thought I was clear: trading prospects for veterans is an extremely inefficient way of acquiring talent. Doing it occasionally is probably required. Doing it as often the as the Red Sox do it will eventually catch up with you. When do they do it that often? Cherington was a hoarder. This was the largest deal we've made since Adrian Gonzalez.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 15, 2015 19:03:02 GMT -5
Exactly. It's not who was traded, it's who's coming back. If we'd gotten 4 years of Danny Salazar for this package instead of three years of Craig Kimbrel, folks would have been applauding. And if it would have taken Chavis or Longhi instead of Asauje, folks still would have been applauding. Agreed. It's all about the return. Everyone on this site has a wildly unrealistic take on the value of prospects. The amount of realistic trades that are posted on this forum are next to nil. These trades aren't made in a vaccuum. They're made in competition, and sometimes guys PAY large prices to sign a necessary piece early, so they can focus on other things. It's not easy to add ELITE relief and ELITE starting pitching in an offseason. DD's back is against the wall, and if he's being truthful and this is his one big trade, then everyone on this site should be wildly happy. Could he have gotten Kimbrel without giving up Allen? Yeah, maybe during the winter meetings a month from now. There's also a chance someone like the yankees, who offered Mateo, would jump back in and drive up the price or complicate things.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 15, 2015 20:22:24 GMT -5
Agreed. It's all about the return. Everyone on this site has a wildly unrealistic take on the value of prospects. The amount of realistic trades that are posted on this forum are next to nil. These trades aren't made in a vaccuum. They're made in competition, and sometimes guys PAY large prices to sign a necessary piece early, so they can focus on other things. It's not easy to add ELITE relief and ELITE starting pitching in an offseason. DD's back is against the wall, and if he's being truthful and this is his one big trade, then everyone on this site should be wildly happy. Could he have gotten Kimbrel without giving up Allen? Yeah, maybe during the winter meetings a month from now. There's also a chance someone like the yankees, who offered Mateo, would jump back in and drive up the price or complicate things. I agree with a lot of your baseball opinions. Most of the trade proposal are unrealistic, and when I see some that make my eyes roll, I'll say something. I try not to be insulting. Lord knows I say enough stupid things. But I would ask you, instead of just being rude or shooting down the ideas, throw out some of your own. Put yourself out there. Make trade proposals that sound realistic to you. I do, and I get shot down too at times, and rightfully so (but without snark).
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 15, 2015 22:22:56 GMT -5
Agreed. It's all about the return. Everyone on this site has a wildly unrealistic take on the value of prospects. The amount of realistic trades that are posted on this forum are next to nil. These trades aren't made in a vaccuum. They're made in competition, and sometimes guys PAY large prices to sign a necessary piece early, so they can focus on other things. It's not easy to add ELITE relief and ELITE starting pitching in an offseason. DD's back is against the wall, and if he's being truthful and this is his one big trade, then everyone on this site should be wildly happy. Could he have gotten Kimbrel without giving up Allen? Yeah, maybe during the winter meetings a month from now. There's also a chance someone like the yankees, who offered Mateo, would jump back in and drive up the price or complicate things. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 15, 2015 22:36:53 GMT -5
Everyone on this site has a wildly unrealistic take on the value of prospects. The amount of realistic trades that are posted on this forum are next to nil. These trades aren't made in a vaccuum. They're made in competition, and sometimes guys PAY large prices to sign a necessary piece early, so they can focus on other things. It's not easy to add ELITE relief and ELITE starting pitching in an offseason. DD's back is against the wall, and if he's being truthful and this is his one big trade, then everyone on this site should be wildly happy. Could he have gotten Kimbrel without giving up Allen? Yeah, maybe during the winter meetings a month from now. There's also a chance someone like the yankees, who offered Mateo, would jump back in and drive up the price or complicate things. I agree with a lot of your baseball opinions. Most of the trade proposal are unrealistic, and when I see some that make my eyes roll, I'll say something. I try not to be insulting. Lord knows I say enough stupid things. But I would ask you, instead of just being rude or shooting down the ideas, throw out some of your own. Put yourself out there. Make trade proposals that sound realistic to you. I do, and I get shot down too at times, and rightfully so (but without snark). The Kimbrel one is uncomfortable. And that's why it makes sense. Because it's not an armchair GM fantasy trade. I agree it should have been achievable without Allen. But not in this timeframe with Dombrowski's laundry list of problems to solve. A possible trade? Swihart, Brian Johnson, Raudes for Jose Quintana. And honestly, it would probably take throwing in a Basabe or Rijo as well. And that's only if the White Sox think Johnson is healthy. This is the cost for 5 years control of a 200IP sub 3.5 era pitcher. Would I love that trade? Not really, I'd be extremely extremely conflicted. Would I make that trade? I don't know. But it's REALISTIC. It's not Rick Porcello and Rusney Castillo for Matt Harvey
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 15, 2015 22:40:44 GMT -5
Honestly, even that is probably too low. You'd probably have to offer Swihart and Owens and two more guys for Quintana.
It's been hinted that Sales price was essentially 3 of our foundational ML core (think Betts, Bogaerts, Erod, JBJ, Swihart) and another two minor leaguers
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 15, 2015 22:45:24 GMT -5
The fact remains, we are DREAMERS. We love our prospects because they're compelling narratives. We follow kids from the draft to the major league playing field. It's what baseball is so successful at, making us buy into storylines that run decades.
But the majority of GMs are assembling talent TO KEEP THEIR JOBS. A losing season isn't a "bummer we'll get em' next year", like it is to us. They cannot play the lotto like we can. A guy like Jose Quintana is extremely valuable, not to mention Chris Sale. Known commodities are expensive because there are so few of them. And in roster building, you won't get many of them.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 15, 2015 22:55:21 GMT -5
The fact remains, we are DREAMERS. We love our prospects because they're compelling narratives. We follow kids from the draft to the major league playing field. It's what baseball is so successful at, making us buy into storylines that run decades. But the majority of GMs are assembling talent TO KEEP THEIR JOBS. A losing season isn't a "bummer we'll get em' next year", like it is to us. They cannot play the lotto like we can. A guy like Jose Quintana is extremely valuable, not to mention Chris Sale. Known commodities are expensive because there are so few of them. And in roster building, you won't get many of them. It's kind of rare that a team (we'll use the Sox here) makes a deal and you can't believe it because it's too good to be true. I think that's happened three times in my 35 years of watching the team where I couldn't believe the great fortune of the Red Sox. I remember being excited about the Sox dealing Otis Nixon to Texas for Jose Canseco. At first I was bummed to find out that Ken Ryan, who I foolishly had high hopes for, was part of the deal, and then really excited to here he wasn't and that it was Luis Ortiz who was part of the deal. I found Canseco a fun player to watch. Of course I was blind to his many, many faults, but I liked the idea of Mo Vaughn and him back to back in the lineup. I remember how thrilled I was that the Sox could come away with Curt Schilling for four guys of little importance. The DBacks, I think, could have had Lester, but they chose guys that's hard to believe that they actually chose. The worst loss was Brandon Lyon, not a big deal. Meanwhile, Schill was everything we could have hoped for and more. And the #1 fleecing I couldn't believe was when the Sox traded the human torch Al Nipper and shell shocked Schiraldi to the Cubs for Lee Smith. Smith had his worst years with the Sox but pitched better after he left, but the other two were worthless, and I still to this day can't believe that's what the Cubs wanted for Lee Smith.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 15, 2015 22:55:47 GMT -5
Honestly, even that is probably too low. You'd probably have to offer Swihart and Owens and two more guys for Quintana. It's been hinted that Sales price was essentially 3 of our foundational ML core (think Betts, Bogaerts, Erod, JBJ, Swihart) and another two minor leaguers I'm in the minority, but I'd offer Vazquez and not Swihart, and that would probably kill the deal for the ChiSox.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Nov 16, 2015 1:50:09 GMT -5
Any 4rth outfielders we could swing for Porcello?? Maybe somebody with 2 years and 15-20 mil left that isn't needed on his team anymore. It would fill a hole for us and open a slot and some payroll for David Price(unlikely but??)
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 16, 2015 2:26:39 GMT -5
Any 4rth outfielders we could swing for Porcello?? Maybe somebody with 2 years and 15-20 mil left that isn't needed on his team anymore. It would fill a hole for us and open a slot and some payroll for David Price(unlikely but??) There's plenty of those 4th OF types on the FA market. The FA market next year for starters is basically Strasburg and that's it. Rizzo of the Nats said no one has called on Strasburg yet, so it's safe to say Dombrowski is not interested. This is an extremely long way of saying that DD probably wouldn't move Porcello. Once he got back to throwing his heavy sinker last year Porcello was great. Something like a 3.2 ERA in his last two months. They view him as an asset, not something to be moved.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Nov 16, 2015 2:31:19 GMT -5
Any 4rth outfielders we could swing for Porcello?? Maybe somebody with 2 years and 15-20 mil left that isn't needed on his team anymore. It would fill a hole for us and open a slot and some payroll for David Price(unlikely but??) There's plenty of those 4th OF types on the FA market. The FA market next year for starters is basically Strasburg and that's it. Rizzo of the Nats said no one has called on Strasburg yet, so it's safe to say Dombrowski is not interested. This is an extremely long way of saying that DD probably wouldn't move Porcello. Once he got back to throwing his heavy sinker last year Porcello was great. Something like a 3.2 ERA in his last two months. They view him as an asset, not something to be moved. Not arguing that Porcello won't be decent going forward. I just don't ever see him as more than a #3 starter. He would be intriguing to some other teams. If we are to sign a guy like price we will have to shed some payroll somewhere. The idea of trading Porcello is to kill 2 birds with one stone. It creates the payroll flexibility to make a run a price and allows the team acquiring Porcello a chance to open a bit of payroll to add a quality pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 16, 2015 2:56:08 GMT -5
There's plenty of those 4th OF types on the FA market. The FA market next year for starters is basically Strasburg and that's it. Rizzo of the Nats said no one has called on Strasburg yet, so it's safe to say Dombrowski is not interested. This is an extremely long way of saying that DD probably wouldn't move Porcello. Once he got back to throwing his heavy sinker last year Porcello was great. Something like a 3.2 ERA in his last two months. They view him as an asset, not something to be moved. Not arguing that Porcello won't be decent going forward. I just don't ever see him as more than a #3 starter. He would be intriguing to some other teams. If we are to sign a guy like price we will have to shed some payroll somewhere. The idea of trading Porcello is to kill 2 birds with one stone. It creates the payroll flexibility to make a run a price and allows the team acquiring Porcello a chance to open a bit of payroll to add a quality pitcher. Yeah I'm not so sure how much payroll they'll have to shed. Miley is moveable at any time, Buch, Koji, Ortiz, Hanigan could all be off the books after 2016. Luxury tax jumps up in 2017. Plus with the dodgers going ape**** on payroll it kind of let fans know that these teams can afford to pay extra tax lol.
|
|
|