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 pedrofanforever45 on Nov 4, 2016 22:27:42 GMT -5
So you basically agreed with my first sentence? Of course. I don't think that's new information. But you'd have to look at his granular batted-ball stats to definitively show that he would have similar or more XBH. And even if the number stayed the same, fewer HR and similarly more 2b means lower SLG. Regardless, park factors suggest his offense would take a hit. Even if it didn't, your opinion re: trading for franchise players is just that: an opinion. For example, by keeping the core the Sox have now, they've had three above-average players among Betts, JBJ, and Bogaerts. One (Betts) is better than Arenado. And the other two are excellent players. You're stuck in black-and-white: I'm not saying trading for Arenado is a bad idea. It's fine if the price is right. Your price is ludicrous. I wouldn't give up that package for Arenado. It was just a realistic package. The Rockies probably wouldn't take less for their best player. Betts is better. He's one of the 3 best players in baseball. I would want him to join Arenado and Xander/JBJ.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 4, 2016 22:27:48 GMT -5
At the cost of the farm system, creating a massive talent deficit in the coming years and severely restricted salary mobility. Fixing one hole for several years by creating several more is poor strategy. I don't see having Mookie and Nolan in the same lineup and see it as a hole. I'm sorry. That's a team in contention for a ton of years. Teams have 25 active roster spots, not 2.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 4, 2016 22:33:13 GMT -5
He's 25 with no prior injury risk, which was a major deal breaker for you with Fernandez. I don't get why you wouldn't want Arenado. You're taking more of a chance that most of those players don't turn into half of what Nolan is and you end up overpaying in other ways (free agency). I mean aren't you the one who's advocating extending Mookie but now would be against extending a guy like Arenado because the Sox have to overpay? Edit- A 7 year deal would end at his age 32 season. The perfect time to get out of a deal. I don't see any risk. You get three years of Arenado on the cheap. And then his contract is going to be FA-value. You keep repeating that we "don't want" him. No: we don't think mortgaging the system for one player is at all wise, especially when that player will cost market value on a long contract in 3 years. They don't NEED the offense. What they do NEED is young, homegrown low-cost talent that makes getting guys like Arenado, or Otani, or whoever, possible via FA, or in trade when the high-end talent they give up is reasonably redundant. Theo Epstein argued vehemently against what you're advocating, and his approach seems pretty viable. The problem is that these players don't reach free agency until their late 20's and they don't become as attractive. You have to trade for these kind of players if you want to control them and have your own chance at extending them.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 4, 2016 22:34:12 GMT -5
I don't see having Mookie and Nolan in the same lineup and see it as a hole. I'm sorry. That's a team in contention for a ton of years. Teams have 25 active roster spots, not 2. The team is filled out pretty well, as noted. I wouldn't be trading EVERYTHING to get the guy.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 4, 2016 22:45:41 GMT -5
I don't see having Mookie and Nolan in the same lineup and see it as a hole. I'm sorry. That's a team in contention for a ton of years. Teams have 25 active roster spots, not 2. I want to hear your view of the Josh Beckett trade. Tell me how this would be any different.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 4, 2016 22:56:37 GMT -5
We would all love Nolan Arenado, he would certainly help our team. We just don't want to massively overpay for a player thst his team doesn't want to trade. We also don't really need him, we already have elite bats. The downside is very simple, the elite prospects we trade reach their potential and 2-3 years from now Moncada is an elite player just like Arenado and Kopech is a front of the rotation starter. Plus whatever other players you have to give up, because you will have to massively overpay to get him. Also we would risk losing our current core because we don't have the money to resign them and we traded the young elite guys making peanuts. Weren't you the one saying that third base is a major question mark heading into 2016? By the way, you would be right in saying this too. Arenado would solve this issue for 10 years. Edit- What if Moncada never reaches his full potential? No, I'm the guy saying don't sign EE and get a platoon guy for Shaw and Pablo at first and Third. A Chris Young type guy and contract. I think we should go after Chapman if we're going to spend big money. See the thing is if Kopech, Moncada and let's say Devers never reach their potential, they can still be more valuable because they will make peanuts and most likely still be decent players. Also chances none of them reach potential is small. Example Travis Shaw made peanuts last season and gave you 20 million worth of production. Without him, we might not have made playoffs and DD might have been forced to trade more prospects. The question you need to be asked is what if Moncada, Kopech and Devers all reach their potential?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 4, 2016 23:10:04 GMT -5
Teams have 25 active roster spots, not 2. I want to hear your view of the Josh Beckett trade. Tell me how this would be any different. We had a massive need for an Ace. Our best pitcher was a 39 year old Curt Schilling. We didn't have any young stud pitchers. Jon Lester was coming off his rookie year of being a league average pitcher. We currently have 3 stud young bats to anchor our lineup, and a bunch of good Vets, we don't have a huge need for a big bat!
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 4, 2016 23:43:12 GMT -5
You get three years of Arenado on the cheap. And then his contract is going to be FA-value. You keep repeating that we "don't want" him. No: we don't think mortgaging the system for one player is at all wise, especially when that player will cost market value on a long contract in 3 years. They don't NEED the offense. What they do NEED is young, homegrown low-cost talent that makes getting guys like Arenado, or Otani, or whoever, possible via FA, or in trade when the high-end talent they give up is reasonably redundant. Theo Epstein argued vehemently against what you're advocating, and his approach seems pretty viable. The problem is that these players don't reach free agency until their late 20's and they don't become as attractive. You have to trade for these kind of players if you want to control them and have your own chance at extending them. Again, I don't disagree with that. However, the jump in contract lengths (eg, Heyward's for one; extensions like Votto and Stanton) mean extensions for an Arenado-tier player are probably 7-10 years. That's a LONG time to be tied into a player, regardless of his age at the beginning. I'm playing devil's advocate on the subtleties of such a deal. For example, looking at the package you offered (probably an accurate estimate), the odds of a BA top-10 position player prospect (Moncada) of becoming a "superior" player (>3.5 WAR/season) are about 40% www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects. And in Moncada's case, we're talking about a young, supremely talented player who was ranked that highly despite never having been in AA. So his ceiling is extraordinarily high. The Sox also have had excellent recent success in developing position player prospects. I think Moncada's probably closer to a 50% chance. Most talent evaluators have him pegged as being Arenado-tier, at least. If Moncada is averaging 3.5+ WAR/season over his six years of control (keeping in mind that players tend to follow an escalating production output, along the lines of 1.5-2-3.5-4-5-5). That's at the LOWEST END of his bucket. The median is probably closer to 4.5 WAR/season, or 27 WAR over those six years (1.5-3-4.5-6-6-6). Arenado is a 6-7 WAR player. So in three years, it's about 50-50 that Moncada approximates his production (assuming Arenado has about an 80-90% chance of continuing at his current level). The issue for me is that Moncada provides essentially ALL excess value for the first three years...when Arenado will make $6-12M more per year. Arenado might dramatically out-produce him during those three years, but the gap starts disappearing. And, when Arenado is a FA in three years (or if he signs an extension), he's making $15-20M more per year over the three years when Moncada is a roughly equivalent player. Plus, to keep Arenado during that time, you'd probably need to tack on 2-5 more years at $25M just to keep him. The longer you keep Arenado, the less likely it is that he maintains that level of production. Of course, salary inflation means that keeping Moncada later on might cost significantly more, but essentially, if you look just at the next six years, you're paying about $20M extra over the first three years and $60 M over the last three. It's worth it the first three, but you're losing that benefit quickly by year 4. If Arenado gives you 36 WAR over six years at a total outlay of about $100M, that's a great bargain. But it's nothing like getting 27 WAR (the median "superior" estimate of 4.5 WAR over 6 years) for around $25M. That's $75M on a roulette wheel color bet. Beyond that, Eduardo Rodriguez, as a second piece, is a present #3 starter (3 fWAR in 230 innings). He's had a freak injury to his leg, which portends future injury much less so than, say, an arm problem. But he does carry a little risk. However, he's also at the development point where players tend to take off (years 3-5). It's a reasonably safe bet (I'd say moderately less safe than Arenado continuing his performance, given their health and position differences) that Rodriguez is a 3-WAR pitcher (borderline 2/3) going forward. BUT, it's also a significant double-digit percentage chance (20-30%?) that he takes a real leap forward to become a 1a/2 (4-5 WAR) pitcher. Even at 3 WAR, he's got four years at about $20M total outlay, during which time he's maybe 50-60% likely to produce 12-20 WAR. We saw this year how valuable (and difficult to find) quality young pitching is. A #2/3 commands 5-6 years in FA at $15-$20M per year, with (I'm guessing) roughly similar odds of reproducing (50-75%) that performance of 3-4 WAR/year. On a strict FA calculus of $8M/WAR, Rodriguez is a good bet to provide 15 WAR at $20M in cost versus 15 WAR at $120M value. Again...huge excess value. The thing is, we could do this for the other players, too. I won't because this post is too long already, but my point is that **even if young players don't become superstars, they provide MASSIVE excess value as MLB regulars**. That excess value can be used to sign star-caliber FAs, or to extend young players. If you have a pipeline of young players (Travis Shaw, for example) who are simply "average," they make risky long-term contracts more palatable. Yes, a FA may be older (and riskier, especially at the tail end of the contract) than a young guy like Arenado, but when your team is filled with 2-3 WAR players making near-league minimum, those are risks your contract flexibility allows. And, those players themselves have value, either in trade to replenish the talent pipeline, or as bench players/depth who make trading away veterans with higher salaries palatable. Some will "bust," (never be more than role players or second-division starters), but nearly all will fill holes that are otherwise costly. Imagine having to sign 3 Chris Young-type players at $5-10M a year to fill bench spots/injury holes versus bringing up a Benintendi. Those $ add up very quickly. Now imagine being able to trade Buchholz away to the highest bidder for a solid minor league arm or two because Kopech is ready to step in. I'm not against trading for Arenado. I'm against trading 4-5 players, each of whom is capable, even likely, to save you $5M per year at their position, and (by odds), one or even two of whom is likely to be exactly the type of outstanding young player, even franchise cornerstone, you're advocating trading for. That cohort of players you want to trade is a good bet, on the low end, to provide $20-40M in excess value in just a year or two. And it's probably 50-75% likely that they provide closer to $50M or more in excess value in just 3 years. There's absolutely now way, at all, that Arenado ever comes close to that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 4, 2016 23:47:32 GMT -5
Teams have 25 active roster spots, not 2. I want to hear your view of the Josh Beckett trade. Tell me how this would be any different. Value-wise, in terms of long-term franchise management, it was a bad trade. Short-term, it helped them win in 2007. Of course, with Ramirez at SS and some $ on a FA pitcher, they could possibly (quite readily) gotten a similar result. It worked out for both teams, but it was a bad value trade. I've never liked it, objectively, though as a fan I loved Mike Lowell. Beckett was grossly overrated. And I loved the WS win, so there's that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 5, 2016 0:21:02 GMT -5
I want to hear your view of the Josh Beckett trade. Tell me how this would be any different. We had a massive need for an Ace. Our best pitcher was a 39 year old Curt Schilling. We didn't have any young stud pitchers. Jon Lester was coming off his rookie year of being a league average pitcher. We currently have 3 stud young bats to anchor our lineup, and a bunch of good Vets, we don't have a huge need for a big bat! Exactly. The Sox are in a position of tremendous strength. They have BA's #1 prospect (again, a conservative--since he's already had significant MLB success--40% chance of producing 21 WAR minimum in the next six years) starting in LF. Betts. Bogaerts. Hanley (who has 2-3 years left on a now-reasonable, and actually tradeable, if desired, contract). Pedroia. They're still among the league's top-3 offenses (and I'd say 2-3 odds to remain the best) even without Ortiz. They have a #1, #2, #3, and three more #3s (all of who have legitimate, historically demonstrated #2 upside) for the 4/5/6 slots. They have a viable closer, and figure to have a good bullpen if Kelly is who he showed, Ross and Barnes take small steps forward, and they re-sign either/both Uehara and Tazawa. Losing Ortiz might mean fewer runs, but Benintendi should help offset a good portion of that, and the pitching almost assuredly will allow substantially fewer runs. They're a VERY solid bet to reproduce their run differential, meaning that they're roughly a 95-100-win team, with neutral luck. There is absolutely no *need* for a bat. They're better off doing what the Cubs did: pick up a few key role players whose value is down (a la Zobrist/Fowler, or the 2013 Sox offseason) to fill out the bullpen and the CIF depth, and let their young talent develop further. Trade Moncada/ERod/Devers/Kopech or something like that for Arenado, and now you need another starter to replace ERod. And you can't really rely on Buchholz. So you have to drop $$$ on a FA for 3-5 years. And you kinda need to keep Buchholz and his $13.5M as depth. Yeah, you might be a 105-win team (if that starter pans out) but does it ACTUALLY, REALLY improve your odds of going to the WS? It probably does little to change their playoff odds...they're already one of the top 3 AL teams. And once they're there? Meh, not by much. The Cubs are probably the favorites, still. And it takes a little luck just to get there, anyway. Maybe you go from 10% to 15%. And if you don't win in 2-3 years, your window starts closing a little, rather than opening when those four players are probably average-to-(much) better starters making league minimum, and you can afford to sign big extensions for Betts/Bogaerts/JBJ/ERod because Hanley and Panda are coming off the books.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 5, 2016 1:00:49 GMT -5
Weren't you the one saying that third base is a major question mark heading into 2016? By the way, you would be right in saying this too. Arenado would solve this issue for 10 years. Edit- What if Moncada never reaches his full potential? No, I'm the guy saying don't sign EE and get a platoon guy for Shaw and Pablo at first and Third. A Chris Young type guy and contract. I think we should go after Chapman if we're going to spend big money. See the thing is if Kopech, Moncada and let's say Devers never reach their potential, they can still be more valuable because they will make peanuts and most likely still be decent players. Also chances none of them reach potential is small. Example Travis Shaw made peanuts last season and gave you 20 million worth of production. Without him, we might not have made playoffs and DD might have been forced to trade more prospects. The question you need to be asked is what if Moncada, Kopech and Devers all reach their potential? That last line isn't going to happen. They all won't reach their potential. There's less than a one percent chance of that happening.
|
|
|
Post by scarr0214 on Nov 5, 2016 1:05:27 GMT -5
No thanks. I would let someone else pay. The variables of leaving Coors Field and going to the AL scare me enough to not give up the world to get him. He's a great hitter don't get me wrong but I see no value here. I feel like Votto would come at a much lower price and give us better production. I think if he was protected in a lineup, like Hanley and Mookie would protect him here, his numbers would be insane.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 5, 2016 1:20:08 GMT -5
I want to hear your view of the Josh Beckett trade. Tell me how this would be any different. Value-wise, in terms of long-term franchise management, it was a bad trade. Short-term, it helped them win in 2007. Of course, with Ramirez at SS and some $ on a FA pitcher, they could possibly (quite readily) gotten a similar result. It worked out for both teams, but it was a bad value trade. I've never liked it, objectively, though as a fan I loved Mike Lowell. Beckett was grossly overrated. And I loved the WS win, so there's that. There was no one like a Josh Beckett at the time. The only other guy was CC Sabathia, who also wasn't a free agent. Josh Beckett was worth every single penny in 2007. That season was arguably the best season I saw from a pitcher from start to finish since Pedro Martinez in 1999 or 2000. So objectively, I disagree with your post. Realistically I like to maximize my chances of winning by getting the best pieces every year that makes the most sense. Arenado is exactly one of those pieces. I wouldn't know the exact package because I'm not a front office person, but I'm sure that's the type of package that would have to be given up for a 24 year elite player with 3 controllable years left like Arenado.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 5, 2016 1:23:09 GMT -5
To me, there's a 5% chance of Moncada becoming Arenado, never mind exceeding him. Arenado would be the best player to come out of a deal like this, and that to me is a win.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 5, 2016 1:29:09 GMT -5
No thanks. I would let someone else pay. The variables of leaving Coors Field and going to the AL scare me enough to not give up the world to get him. He's a great hitter don't get me wrong but I see no value here. I feel like Votto would come at a much lower price and give us better production. I think if he was protected in a lineup, like Hanley and Mookie would protect him here, his numbers would be insane. Okay so you would rather have the worst contract literally in baseball for a guy in his 30's right now, who doesn't play good defense versus a guy like Arenado who is in his mid 20's and has yet to reach his prime? What? Of course he would come at a lower price. The Reds would love to give away that contract for free if given the chance.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 5, 2016 1:34:53 GMT -5
No thanks. I would let someone else pay. The variables of leaving Coors Field and going to the AL scare me enough to not give up the world to get him. He's a great hitter don't get me wrong but I see no value here. I feel like Votto would come at a much lower price and give us better production. I think if he was protected in a lineup, like Hanley and Mookie would protect him here, his numbers would be insane. Okay so you would rather have the worst contract literally in baseball for a guy in his 30's right now, who doesn't play good defense versus a guy like Arenado who is in his mid 20's and has yet to reach his prime? What? Of course he would come at a lower price. The Reds would love to give away that contract for free if given the chance. No way Votto is the worst contract, he's still elite. It could get ugly, but he could also be like Ortiz, you just don't know. Heyward contract is worst, he's not worth it already.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 5, 2016 1:38:28 GMT -5
To me, there's a 5% chance of Moncada becoming Arenado, never mind exceeding him. Arenado would be the best player to come out of a deal like this, and that to me is a win. I would say 5% is very low, he's about an elite a prospect as there is. Those guys pan out at a much higher rate than you think. Also getting best player in trade doesn't mean you win, this is Baseball, not Basketball. One 6.5 war player is not better than three 4 war players for example.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 5, 2016 1:46:38 GMT -5
To me, there's a 5% chance of Moncada becoming Arenado, never mind exceeding him. Arenado would be the best player to come out of a deal like this, and that to me is a win. Well, based on historical data, you'd be wrong. I linked to the data, so it's right there to see. He has a 22% chance of being "superior," i.e, 4.5 WAR/year or better, based on a reasonably-sized data set, and his pedigree.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 5, 2016 1:48:20 GMT -5
To me, there's a 5% chance of Moncada becoming Arenado, never mind exceeding him. Arenado would be the best player to come out of a deal like this, and that to me is a win. I would say 5% is very low, he's about an elite a prospect as there is. Those guys pan out at a much higher rate than you think. Also getting best player in trade doesn't mean you win, this is Baseball, not Basketball. One 6.5 war player is not better than three 4 war players for example. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 5, 2016 1:52:28 GMT -5
To me, there's a 5% chance of Moncada becoming Arenado, never mind exceeding him. Arenado would be the best player to come out of a deal like this, and that to me is a win. I'm sure you thought the same thing about Bogaerts, Betts and Bradley. Truly elite prospects pan out a lot more than you seem to understand. Sure it's a long shot but it wouldn't shock me, they are all elite prospects. The chance they all turn into above average regulars is very high.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 5, 2016 2:24:28 GMT -5
To me, there's a 5% chance of Moncada becoming Arenado, never mind exceeding him. Arenado would be the best player to come out of a deal like this, and that to me is a win. I'm sure you thought the same thing about Bogaerts, Betts and Bradley. Truly elite prospects pan out a lot more than you seem to understand. Sure it's a long shot but it wouldn't shock me, they are all elite prospects. The chance they all turn into above average regulars is very high. Yeah, if the Sox had traded Bogaerts the bust and Betts the unknown for Cole Hamels, they might've made the playoffs two years ago. Except that now they have a 9-WAR RF, a 5-WAR CF, a 4-WAR SS, and, using Hamels's salary (plus $9M a year), a 5-WAR LHSP. Plus, you know, they didn't have to pay $10-20M a year, each, for a RF, CF, and SS.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 5, 2016 10:53:14 GMT -5
At the cost of the farm system, creating a massive talent deficit in the coming years and severely restricted salary mobility. Fixing one hole for several years by creating several more is poor strategy. I don't see having Mookie and Nolan in the same lineup and see it as a hole. I'm sorry. That's a team in contention for a ton of years. Until they're making $30 million a year and you don't have any great prospects to put in as a starter making $500k per year which is the only thing that allows them to spend so much on two players.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 5, 2016 11:54:23 GMT -5
To me, there's a 5% chance of Moncada becoming Arenado, never mind exceeding him. Arenado would be the best player to come out of a deal like this, and that to me is a win. I'm sure you thought the same thing about Bogaerts, Betts and Bradley. Truly elite prospects pan out a lot more than you seem to understand. Sure it's a long shot but it wouldn't shock me, they are all elite prospects. The chance they all turn into above average regulars is very high. I only doubted JBJ. The Sox weren't very good when JBJ and Betts came up through the system and actually developed. Right now the Sox are fairly good with a few questions. They had time to develop when the Sox were essentially rebuilding. The Sox aren't trying to develop right now with Moncada and Devers, they're trying to win.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 5, 2016 11:55:24 GMT -5
To me, there's a 5% chance of Moncada becoming Arenado, never mind exceeding him. Arenado would be the best player to come out of a deal like this, and that to me is a win. Well, based on historical data, you'd be wrong. I linked to the data, so it's right there to see. He has a 22% chance of being "superior," i.e, 4.5 WAR/year or better, based on a reasonably-sized data set, and his pedigree. So you're saying there's still not a great chance?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 5, 2016 11:56:13 GMT -5
I'm sure you thought the same thing about Bogaerts, Betts and Bradley. Truly elite prospects pan out a lot more than you seem to understand. Sure it's a long shot but it wouldn't shock me, they are all elite prospects. The chance they all turn into above average regulars is very high. Yeah, if the Sox had traded Bogaerts the bust and Betts the unknown for Cole Hamels, they might've made the playoffs two years ago. Except that now they have a 9-WAR RF, a 5-WAR CF, a 4-WAR SS, and, using Hamels's salary (plus $9M a year), a 5-WAR LHSP. Plus, you know, they didn't have to pay $10-20M a year, each, for a RF, CF, and SS. I didn't want Cole at the time. He was 30/31. Arenado is 24/25 and more comparable to the example I have in Josh Beckett, not Hamels. There's the difference.
|
|
|