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 5, 2016 12:00:15 GMT -5
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. Votto is already in his 30's with a very bad prior injury history. His contract runs through 2024, with no chance of a opt out. Heyward has 2 opt outs coming up.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 5, 2016 12:05:38 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. 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. Then what you'll have to do is find those cost essential talent through trades. Like with Stephen Wright. Yeah it's tougher, but not impossible.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 5, 2016 14:06:35 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. 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. You just keep digging yourself a deeper hole. Last year how many young guys did we play? We were trying to win and still played Benintendi, Moncada, Shaw, Hembree, Barnes and Owens. Winning teams still need young players to fill holes and for depth. Do you really think Sox aren't going to call up Moncada next year because they are trying to win? No reason to talk about Devers he's a couple years away.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 5, 2016 14:11:01 GMT -5
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. So how many elite prospects did we give up for two all stars in Beckett and Lowel? The answer is two, Ramirez and Sanchez, you want to give up 3-4 elite guys for one all star. Don't you see a difference? We also don't have a huge need, like we did in Beckett trade.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 5, 2016 14:27:25 GMT -5
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. Votto is already in his 30's with a very bad prior injury history. His contract runs through 2024, with no chance of a opt out. Heyward has 2 opt outs coming up. Do you understand opt outs are for the players? His team can't opt out, only player. Right now the chances Heyward opts out is zero, he hit .230 .306 on base% and .325 slugging. His bat was well below replacement level in what should be his prime years. Votto hit .326 .434 and slugged .550 with 29 HRs. If I had to take one of those contracts, I take Votto and it's not even close. Sure the last few years might be bad, but Heyward is already worthless and his DRS numbers have gone down for two straight years. You could stick Votto at DH as his bat is still elite.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 5, 2016 14:32:37 GMT -5
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. Then what you'll have to do is find those cost essential talent through trades. Like with Stephen Wright. Yeah it's tougher, but not impossible. Or we just keep our elite prospects. See that was easy, problem solved. I'm a guy that likes to make trades, but my number one rule is to not trade guys I think will be elite. You want to trade four of them in Moncada, Kopech, Devers and EROD.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 5, 2016 17:38:42 GMT -5
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? Go read the article. Nolan Arenado's first 4 years: 2.5, 2.9, 4.5, 5.2 fWAR. Averaging 3.8 fWAR/year. If he puts up two years like this past year (we'll say 5.5 fWAR), that's 26.1 over 6 years, or an average of 4.4 per season. AS I ALREADY SAID, according to the article, historical analysis shows that position players in the top-10 have a 40% chance of falling into the 3.5-4.4 WAR/year bucket, and a 22% chance of 4.5+. Moncada was ranked #1, and by all accounts he's a truly elite prospect. Since those odds are for all comers, and success rate is intimately tied to rank (also shown in that article), it's fair to say that Moncada, as a #1, has a better chance than those odds, since those odds include players ranked 2-9 as well. I'm saying there's a very good chance, probably 50% that he falls into Arenado's bucket (within 1 WAR/yr of him) and probably a 1 in 4 chance that he's a better player. Those are the data. You can argue that you don't agree, or about the interpretation, but the data are what they are. And the data say that your "5%" estimate is a full order of magnitude off.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 5, 2016 17:44:33 GMT -5
Votto is already in his 30's with a very bad prior injury history. His contract runs through 2024, with no chance of a opt out. Heyward has 2 opt outs coming up. Do you understand opt outs are for the players? His team can't opt out, only player. Right now the chances Heyward opts out is zero, he hit .230 .306 on base% and .325 slugging. His bat was well below replacement level in what should be his prime years. Votto hit .326 .434 and slugged .550 with 29 HRs. If I had to take one of those contracts, I take Votto and it's not even close. Sure the last few years might be bad, but Heyward is already worthless and his DRS numbers have gone down for two straight years. You could stick Votto at DH as his bat is still elite. Yeah, Votto's contract is light years better than Heyward's. Votto's contract will be crappy when he's making $23 a year or whatever it is, and hitting like he should be making 2.2. Right now he's a $30+M hitter.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 5, 2016 21:08:21 GMT -5
It's not even a issue worth discussing.
Everyone here can't see the value of Arenado. Everyone thinks one of Devers or Moncada is a lock to turn into a top 20 player in baseball. It's just the wrong message board to discuss this with.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 5, 2016 23:05:33 GMT -5
It's not even a issue worth discussing. Everyone here can't see the value of Arenado. Everyone thinks one of Devers or Moncada is a lock to turn into a top 20 player in baseball. It's just the wrong message board to discuss this with. It's incredible after all of that that you are so extreme. 1) People disagree with you. It happens. 2) Everyone sees the value in Arenado, they just think you're giving up WAY too much. 3) NOBODY thinks Devers or Moncada "is a lock" to turn into a top-20 player. They're just aware that the likelihood of each becoming, at worst, an above-average player, is between 1-in-3 and 50-50. You obviously didn't read the prospect analysis. Is it more important for you to be "right" or have people agree with you than to be informed? You're right, this site is a place where, if you make up a "5%" number and stick it on a "50%" player, someone will call you out on it and have data to back it up. It happens to all of us. If anything, I'd think you'd be excited to realize that, with Benintendi, Moncada, Devers, and Kopech (and probably Groome), the odds are very high (based on historical analysis) that they'll end up with one, and more likely, two perennial All-Stars, and one or two other useful, if not star-caliber, players. Instead you're bummed that nobody else wants to trade the farm system for a single player who was roughly equivalent in value to Jackie Bradley Jr last year. And really, since the Sox **aren't** trading for Arenado, doesn't it make a lot more sense to be PSYCHED about the players they do have?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 6, 2016 0:55:16 GMT -5
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. Also, look at Beckett's time in Boston: www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=510&position=PHe won 16, 20, 12, 17, 6, and 13 games, with an aggregate ERA of right around 4. He had two years with an ERA over 5, for *great* teams. His best season wouldn't crack Pedro or Kershaw's top-5. And with Hanley Ramirez slashing .320/.400/.500 and stealing 50 bases a year from SS, the Sox could've thrown Johnny Way-Back Wasdin in the rotation and had just as good a team. Acquiring young franchise players nearing their prime is great, unless you're giving up 3-4 high-likelihood outstanding to elite prospects to do it. Now, Arenado for Devers-Travis-Basabe-Kopech, I'd consider. But that also wouldn't get it done. And I have a sneaking suspicion that I'd really regret it later on. Based on your original package, substituting Buchholz for ERod, I'd do it if John Gray also came back with Arenado. He's the Rockie I *really* think they should try to pry away.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 6, 2016 2:19:22 GMT -5
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. Also, look at Beckett's time in Boston: www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=510&position=PHe won 16, 20, 12, 17, 6, and 13 games, with an aggregate ERA of right around 4. He had two years with an ERA over 5, for *great* teams. His best season wouldn't crack Pedro or Kershaw's top-5. And with Hanley Ramirez slashing .320/.400/.500 and stealing 50 bases a year from SS, the Sox could've thrown Johnny Way-Back Wasdin in the rotation and had just as good a team. Acquiring young franchise players nearing their prime is great, unless you're giving up 3-4 high-likelihood outstanding to elite prospects to do it. Now, Arenado for Devers-Travis-Basabe-Kopech, I'd consider. But that also wouldn't get it done. And I have a sneaking suspicion that I'd really regret it later on. Based on your original package, substituting Buchholz for ERod, I'd do it if John Gray also came back with Arenado. He's the Rockie I *really* think they should try to pry away. Just went on Baseball-Reference and looked at WARs of the four main players in that deal and your selling Beckett a little short. Not really fair to compare him to 2 of the best pitchers of all time. He did have 6.5, 5.1 and 5.8 war seasons. While not on Martinez and Kershaw level those are great seasons, true Ace stuff. I get Beckett and Lowel at 33.2 WARs and Ramirez and Sanchez at 40.5 WARs . We also won a title. Beckett gave us 22.6 WARs and Ramirez had 26.8 over the same time. Sure we paid a lot more per war, but that wasn't a horrible trade for a team that wanted to win now.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 6, 2016 2:22:00 GMT -5
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. You're reading the study wrong. "Superior" means 2.5+ WAR, not 3.5+. The median outcome for the #1 prospect in baseball (which Moncada likely no longer is, by the way) is absolutely not a 4.5 WAR player.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 6, 2016 5:51:09 GMT -5
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. You're reading the study wrong. "Superior" means 2.5+ WAR, not 3.5+. The median outcome for the #1 prospect in baseball (which Moncada likely no longer is, by the way) is absolutely not a 4.5 WAR player. Well you're right that I was reading it incorrectly. The top decile is 20% for 3.5+ not 4.5+WAR average/year. Regardless, the study uses peak ranking (we know Moncada isn't 1 anymore because they rank Benintendi above him), and Moncada falls in the top decile (he was 3 this spring, unless you want to count his midsession #1). The **average** WAR (see graph) of all #1s is over 3. Again, that's during cost-controlled years which usually include several years of relative struggle, and looking at peak rank. And that's ALL COMERS who were #1s. Of course, if you'd read more closely you'd see that I didn't state that the median outcome for all #1s was a 4.5, I stated that the median outcome of the "superior" subgroup of the top decile (roughly 40%) was likely in the range of 4.5. Since that subgroup includes only players who average over 2.5 WAR, and the mean of all #1s is over three, that 4.5 is actually probably fairly accurate (it may be closer to 4) since it's looking at the high-performing subgroup, NOT all comers as you stated. Not to mention, Moncada falls into the second-highest-likelihood of superior performance subgroup based on position, 3b (although that 2b ranking might cause pause). And it's calculated over cost-controlled years, meaning that the player's peak performance likely (substantially) exceeds their 6-year average, with escalating value towards years 4-6. That still means even a "successful" 2-WAR player is likely to have 3+ WAR seasons towards the tail end of control, which the author mentions. My argument re: Rodriguez stands. Kopech and Devers may well fall in the top quintile this winter (Kopech probably second quintile, I imagine). I'll take a 40% risk on Moncada "success" with a few 3-WAR seasons (and a 20-25% chance that he's 3.5+ *average*-see chart by decile), his retained value as a trade piece, and a fairly high liklihood at Rodriguez being a 3+-WAR pitcher, plus the breakout potential of the rest of the group, at minimal cost, over obliterating the team's talent depth to pay $25M for three years of Arenado, and then hope to pony up $25M AAV over 5+ more years, when he's 28-29.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2016 8:03:34 GMT -5
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. So that trade package would have been good for Arenado?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2016 8:04:35 GMT -5
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. Then what you'll have to do is find those cost essential talent through trades. Like with Stephen Wright. Yeah it's tougher, but not impossible. Sounds like what they did when they were out of money and out of prospects in 2012 or so.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 6, 2016 11:51:03 GMT -5
It's not even a issue worth discussing. Everyone here can't see the value of Arenado. Everyone thinks one of Devers or Moncada is a lock to turn into a top 20 player in baseball. It's just the wrong message board to discuss this with. It's incredible after all of that that you are so extreme. 1) People disagree with you. It happens. 2) Everyone sees the value in Arenado, they just think you're giving up WAY too much. 3) NOBODY thinks Devers or Moncada "is a lock" to turn into a top-20 player. They're just aware that the likelihood of each becoming, at worst, an above-average player, is between 1-in-3 and 50-50. You obviously didn't read the prospect analysis. Is it more important for you to be "right" or have people agree with you than to be informed? You're right, this site is a place where, if you make up a "5%" number and stick it on a "50%" player, someone will call you out on it and have data to back it up. It happens to all of us. If anything, I'd think you'd be excited to realize that, with Benintendi, Moncada, Devers, and Kopech (and probably Groome), the odds are very high (based on historical analysis) that they'll end up with one, and more likely, two perennial All-Stars, and one or two other useful, if not star-caliber, players. Instead you're bummed that nobody else wants to trade the farm system for a single player who was roughly equivalent in value to Jackie Bradley Jr last year. And really, since the Sox **aren't** trading for Arenado, doesn't it make a lot more sense to be PSYCHED about the players they do have? No I'm just realistic about the trade package, that's close to what Arenado would require. Imo, Arenado is the best player in the deal, they wouldn't be giving up too much. This is where I disagree with all of you.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 6, 2016 13:11:13 GMT -5
Then what you'll have to do is find those cost essential talent through trades. Like with Stephen Wright. Yeah it's tougher, but not impossible. Sounds like what they did when they were out of money and out of prospects in 2012 or so. The Sox had Mookie, Xander, JBJ, Swihart, Vasquez, Barnes, and Owens in the system actually.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 6, 2016 13:12:08 GMT -5
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. So that trade package would have been good for Arenado? Yeah because he's so young and you can build around him, unlike Cole.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 6, 2016 13:14:36 GMT -5
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. You're reading the study wrong. "Superior" means 2.5+ WAR, not 3.5+. The median outcome for the #1 prospect in baseball (which Moncada likely no longer is, by the way) is absolutely not a 4.5 WAR player. So Moncada's medium outcome is what half of what Arenado is right now, and everyone here is disagreeing with me about the trade.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2016 16:01:06 GMT -5
Sounds like what they did when they were out of money and out of prospects in 2012 or so. The Sox had Mookie, Xander, JBJ, Swihart, Vasquez, Barnes, and Owens in the system actually. Of that list, only Xander was in the top 9 at the beginning of 2012. Swihart was 10th. They had very little in terms of prospects at that point, and nothing to bolster the team as major league depth. They were forced to fill positions with bad cheap options and didn't have any depth on top of that. That's what happens when you cannot add young players to the major league roster for too long in an age where building through free agency is usually a losing proposition. Gutting the farm for Arenado is a horrible idea. I wouldn't even want to do it for Trout because we'd end up where the Angels are now. We'd have all our money tied up in a few players with no prospects left or room to increase the budget. I would bet that at least one of the prospects given up for Arenado would be as good as he is. And even if none were, you'd be giving up a lot of cheap decent depth at the very least. And that's the kind of depth you cannot replace- guys in AAA with options who could be above replacement level.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 6, 2016 20:17:40 GMT -5
It's incredible after all of that that you are so extreme. 1) People disagree with you. It happens. 2) Everyone sees the value in Arenado, they just think you're giving up WAY too much. 3) NOBODY thinks Devers or Moncada "is a lock" to turn into a top-20 player. They're just aware that the likelihood of each becoming, at worst, an above-average player, is between 1-in-3 and 50-50. You obviously didn't read the prospect analysis. Is it more important for you to be "right" or have people agree with you than to be informed? You're right, this site is a place where, if you make up a "5%" number and stick it on a "50%" player, someone will call you out on it and have data to back it up. It happens to all of us. If anything, I'd think you'd be excited to realize that, with Benintendi, Moncada, Devers, and Kopech (and probably Groome), the odds are very high (based on historical analysis) that they'll end up with one, and more likely, two perennial All-Stars, and one or two other useful, if not star-caliber, players. Instead you're bummed that nobody else wants to trade the farm system for a single player who was roughly equivalent in value to Jackie Bradley Jr last year. And really, since the Sox **aren't** trading for Arenado, doesn't it make a lot more sense to be PSYCHED about the players they do have? No I'm just realistic about the trade package, that's close to what Arenado would require. Imo, Arenado is the best player in the deal, they wouldn't be giving up too much. This is where I disagree with all of you. Yeah, I think you're right on with roughly what it would take to get him. So yes, I think you're right in that the disagreement is over the value of what they're giving up, and whether it's worth it. Still, since the trade won't happen, at least it's nice to know that, in that package, they're almost guaranteed to produce at least one above-average regular, and two useful role players, at a minimum. And it's roughly 50-50 that they develop someone from that group who is a 4-WAR player *on average* (or, by yearly WAR, 2-3-4-4-5-6), who costs around $25M for all six years. Looking at their top-5: Position players have about a 40% chance of being "superior" if they're in the top-20 in peak BA rank. "Superior" is 2.5+ WAR average over six seasons, meaning 15 WAR, minimum (I misspoke when originally I said it was 3.5+). About half of that group falls into the 2.5-3.5 range, another quarter into the 3.5-4.5, and the last quarter into 4.5+ (which is superstar territory; Arenado is on pace to be at the high end of 3.5-4.5, for reference). OF and 3b are the most consistently successful positions. Benintendi, Moncada, and Devers all play one of those two positions, so they're probably a bit better than a 40% chance to be "superior." Also, among top-100s, the higher the ranking, the better the chance of success. While that's not very exciting, or unexpected, the real kicker is that the effect is minimal outside of the top-40, but once in the top-40, it gets very, very significant. The odds of producing a star (3.5+ WAR) double once you get into the top-20, and the odds of producing a superstar (4.5+ average) double again in the top-10. Moncada (last year's mid season BA ranking) has been a #1, and Benintendi (based on the current Sox ranking, being above Moncada) has an excellent chance of being a #1. The MEAN production of #1s, based on the graph shown, is about 3.3 WAR (all comers), and the Sox will probably have two of those. Benintendi has also already had MLB success, scouts pretty much all agree that he's a likely star with an outstanding hit tool, and he's in the highest-success rate group (OF). He's also playing "down" in positional difficulty, as a CF in LF...and we saw with Victorino how that can improve value. Overall, "success" (average or better MLB player, about 2 WAR per season) occurs about 60% of the time for top-20s. The Sox have been very successful with position player development. Both Benintendi and Moncada have made it to MLB, with Benintendi having excellent results despite very aggressive promotion. I think it's fair to say that, for Benintendi at least, the odds are probably better than 60% (75%?) that he'll be at least average. And since he's a top-10 (and maybe a 1), he's an OF (highest "superior" rate), and he's already produced at an above-average level (3.3 fWAR/650 PA; a small sample but highly consistent with MiLB results), the odds that he becomes a star-caliber player (4 WAR/season average) are pretty damn good. For the top decile in the study, it's roughly 20%, but I'd say (taking the above into account), it's closer to 1 in 3. Given his high ranking history, being a 3b, and playing for a team that develops position players well, Moncada is AT LEAST 60-70% likely to be an average player, and probably 25% likely to be star-caliber. And for both, the historical chances of superstardom (4.5+ WAR/season) are over 10%, before taking into account the improved odds due to their positions, the organizational history with position players, and Benintendi's history of MLB success. That's pretty awesome, and that's before even thinking about Devers, who is a forgotten man but plays very good defense at 3b, and has already made the top-20 (and could be top-10 this winter). So he's a 60% chance or better to be successful, and 40% or better to be above average (superior), and about 25% likely to be a star. Kopech and Groome are less exciting, at least in terms of probabilities, because they're pitchers, and not ranked as highly. Kopech will probably fall somewhere in the 20-50 range, with his odds of being an average MLB pitcher about 40%. In the 20-30 range, the odds of being above-average are only about 1-in-7. If Groome makes the list (I think he'll be around 75), he's got about a 20% chance of being average or better. The takeaway from that is, I suppose, that dreaming on pitchers is usually dreaming. The positive is that both of them are very high-ceiling, rather than being good-bet-but-not-exciting guys who make the list based on high floor. All of this also goes to show that your idea of acquiring a guy like Fernandez (young, cost-controlled pitcher) has a lot of merit. Since prospect attrition among pitchers is so high, it really does serve a team best to acquire established ones. Trading for, and even developing, pitching *prospects* is very risky. That suggests that a team needs to play a numbers game, and hoard, pitching prospects if they don't trade for pitching. It also makes me rethink the Espinoza trade. In this light, it looks a lot better. It also tells me that trading ERod is a huge mistake, but trading Kopech or Groome, while my gut says no, isn't at all a bad idea if you're getting pitching back. Kopech and Groome for John Gray? Probably a good idea. Lastly, you really want to avoid trading high-ranked position prospects for pitching, or especially pitching prospects. The success rate of positional prospects is so high that it's a good chance you lose out on your own player becoming a good player or even a star (first scenario), or you get junk back (latter scenario). In all, though, with those five players, and Rodriguez (the rare pitching prospect success story), the Sox are in terrific shape for the next three years. They have a strong pipeline of positional players who are an excellent bet to be at least 2-3 WAR players, ready to fill ALL of the spots on their (non-pitching) roster which require addressing (CIF/DH), at negligible cost. They have a young outfield trio, two stars and one player who looks to be a third. The only spot in question is C, and they have three players there who look like they can be at least passable. Hanley had a great year, and maybe he ends up being worth an extension. But at the least, when Devers is ready, he's a good bet to be a viable replacement, meaning the Sox can trade Hanley (whose contract is now, actually, reasonable). Moncada is a good bet to provide a replacement for Panda/Shaw, meaning the Sox can 1) get value from Shaw in trade when Moncada is ready, and 2) save $17M a year over Panda's deal, when he's gone in 3 years and Moncada is the starter. Even if those guys are just average, that means a TON of money saved to be able to pursue an Otani, Trout, or someone else, AND sign extensions for Betts/Bogaerts/Bradley Jr and Rodriguez (I think those should all be done NOW). Wright/Rodriguez/Pomeranz are all low-cost, and the rotation is set. Hopefully, one of Kopech/Groome does pan out as at least a #4; maybe Owens or Johnson does too. Buchholz's salary will be gone. Price probably won't exercise his opt-out. Porcello has three more years, but might require an extension. But having those low-cost guys means they can afford the current 1-2, or to pay Rodriguez if he continues developing and becomes a Porcello replacement. The Sox have such a high-ceiling, relatively low-risk top-5 that they are in terrific position to shed some big contracts at exactly the same time that they'll probably have viable (or even outstanding) in-house replacements. That should help them retain the young core that they have now, actually trade some excess (eg, Shaw) for more prospects to put in the pipeline, and be able to sign one or more superstar-caliber, relatively young free agents. And, if they can find the right deals, hopefully trade for one or two young starters like Gray or Salazar, who have upside, and several years of control. Just start the talks with pitching prospects, not positional ones.
|
|
|