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 telson13 on Jun 3, 2016 10:30:20 GMT -5
Haha never said they had no value. Just that we overvalue them in general. Example a lot of people have said they wouldn't trade Espinoza for anyone. Now I don't want to trade him, as I don't really want to trade any of our elite guys, but saying you wouldn't trade him for anyone is overvaluing him, plan and simple. Look at the roster of our first place team. That doesn't count, it happens by magic.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 3, 2016 10:54:24 GMT -5
Actually, the success rate of higher-level prospects has increased pretty dramatically from 20 years ago. Trading four high-grade young players for Fernandez, by odds, means losing one All-Star, one regular, another borderline regular, and an organizational/utility guy. And that's all comers, the success rate for position players (especially in an organization with lots of success developing position players) suggests better than that, and Rodriguez has already had significant MLB success, to the tune of projecting for 3-4 WAR, at the ripe age of 22. Position players, in particular, are good bets to be at least moderately productive. I don't think it's overvaluation in the least. It's recognition that the cost of free agency and late-arb contract extensions greatly outweighs the benefits in far more circumstances than not. It's years of people seeing Ryan Howards, Carl Crawfords, CC Sabathias, Mike Hamptons, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some prospect-binkying, but I've followed the minors for many years, and drafting/development is light years ahead of where it was when I was a kid. Teams trading vets are getting more prospects, better ones, and with higher success rates. It's made dealing prospects a losing proposition. I haven't seen a new analysis, but I'm willing to bet that the historical estimate of 2-for-1 WAR ratio in dealing prospects for vets is merely a point on an upward-trending continuum. Ok you act like it's a fact that higher level prospects have dramatically increased success rate from 20 years ago. That is based on what exactly? You also seem to be mixing in your dislike for a trade Idea that was not mine. This is one article. There are several, including the original which goes into more detail. BA may even have done their own analysis. espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/43074/a-study-on-success-rate-of-prospectscamdendepot.blogspot.com/2013/12/death-to-tinstaapp-updating-mckinneys.html?m=1And you're confused if you think I don't like the trade. That's wrong: I don't like the **philosophy** in general. Trading bunches of prospects for single MLB superstars, particularly risky ones, is very rarely a wise move. There are exceptions (Pedro being one, although that was just two high-level pitching prospects, so I'm not sure it counts; Mighy Cabrera). This is a philosophy of fiscal irresponsibility. It creates major talent gaps down the road, which usually require expensive FAs to fill. That thins out the talent pool further by losing draft picks, and creating high-cost, long-term roadblocks to talent development. There are more efficient means to acquire talent. Just look at the Cubs and Red Sox: teams built on young cores.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 3, 2016 12:15:52 GMT -5
And I don't "throw out the idea that they could extend him." Maybe I wasn't clear, but my point was that if he stays in FL (which he almost surely will, since there are few viable trade partners), he will almost certainly go to FA. If the Sox got him and extended him, it would be at market rate. So they're better off waiting and just signing him and not throwing away talent on a crapshoot that they'll get some discount if they trade for him beforehand. Will almost surely stay in Florida and reach free agency??? You willing to place a bet on that? Loser has to leave board for 3 months. The Marlins will sign him to extension or trade him, with a like 95% chance he gets traded. Or you could just leave for three months and save us the trouble. But yes, I misspoke, so I'll clarify. If he stays in FL for the next two summers, until his final year, when he can't be QO'd, he will almost assuredly be traded for whatever they can get, and *then go to FA.* If he's traded before then, I'd say it's 30/70 that he signs an extension.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 3, 2016 13:41:15 GMT -5
That's really the window for most teams with players in their primes like Pedrioa, Betts, Xander, Price, Kimbrel, and company. The Sox window to win is the next 3-4 years. Then Mookie and Xander are free agents, Price might be gone or a number 2-3 starter after that, Kimbrel will be in his 30's and probably will be gone too. This is all about this great window to go for it again. Wrong. Take the money you want to throw at Fernandez. Extend Bogaerts, Bradley, and Betts. Continue developing the FOUR top-20 prospects. Draft 12th in the first round this summer. Have a decade-long window instead of 3 years. I mean, it's genuinely laughable to me that you're **certain** that the Sox can extend Fernandez, but you put it down as gospel that the Sox's young players are automatically leaving via FA. It's bizarre. It's amazing to me that given what the Sox have been through the last 6-7 years, you want to repeat the cycle. It's wasting my time talking about it. I'm done. You have tunnel vision and think your way is the only one that makes sense. Price can and most likely will opt out, in which case you could let him Walk and have Fernandez as his replacement. Thus giving you a younger ACE and plenty of money to resign Betts, Bradley and Bogaerts. But if they all continue to mash you won't most likely be able to extend all 3 of them if the cost is 20 to 30 plus million a year for what could be 7 to 10 year contracts. It's not crazy to call our window the next 3-4 years, that's how GM look at it. DD is not working on a 10 year plan and a decade long window. You also seem to be forgetting that the heart and soul of the team is retiring after this year, thus this might be the best chance at a championship for the next ten years. The correct path is something in the middle of your don't trade our prospects continue the path and people that want to trade a crap load of top prospects to win this year.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 3, 2016 13:58:15 GMT -5
Ok you act like it's a fact that higher level prospects have dramatically increased success rate from 20 years ago. That is based on what exactly? You also seem to be mixing in your dislike for a trade Idea that was not mine. This is one article. There are several, including the original which goes into more detail. BA may even have done their own analysis. espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/43074/a-study-on-success-rate-of-prospectscamdendepot.blogspot.com/2013/12/death-to-tinstaapp-updating-mckinneys.html?m=1And you're confused if you think I don't like the trade. That's wrong: I don't like the **philosophy** in general. Trading bunches of prospects for single MLB superstars, particularly risky ones, is very rarely a wise move. There are exceptions (Pedro being one, although that was just two high-level pitching prospects, so I'm not sure it counts; Mighy Cabrera). This is a philosophy of fiscal irresponsibility. It creates major talent gaps down the road, which usually require expensive FAs to fill. That thins out the talent pool further by losing draft picks, and creating high-cost, long-term roadblocks to talent development. There are more efficient means to acquire talent. Just look at the Cubs and Red Sox: teams built on young cores. I'm confused because I haven't proposed a trade in this thread or even said we should do that trade to a trade proposed by another poster. I didn't propose trading 4 top prospects including ERod yet you act like I did. You have confused another posters comments for something you think I said. I'm also not confused by what you want, keep all prospects because in your mind that will make us contenders for the next decade, that's very simple to understand. Now onto prospects having dramatically higher success rates than 20 years ago. That is not what that article says. Article says 70% of top 100 prospects are busts, read that again 70% of top 100 prospects become busts. Now top 20 positional players bust at almost same rate, it actually increased very slightly in 20 years. The article does say that there has been a huge decrease in bust amount in top 20 pitching prospects. Which he thinks is the results of teams keeping pitchers healthy like limited workloads and better medical treatments.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 3, 2016 14:06:04 GMT -5
Look at the roster of our first place team. What exactly is your point that people like you don't overvalue prospects? PS: Still waiting on those 20 teams. The point is that prospects can help our team by playing them. I'm sure there were some trades where you would have been fine to trade Bogaerts, Betts, JBJ and Vazquez back in 2014. What one player would make the team better today than having those 4 playing for us? Also keep in mind that those 4 players playing at their current level are probably worth well more than $100 million per year. Keep waiting.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 3, 2016 14:20:05 GMT -5
What exactly is your point that people like you don't overvalue prospects? PS: Still waiting on those 20 teams. The point is that prospects can help our team by playing them. I'm sure there were some trades where you would have been fine to trade Bogaerts, Betts, JBJ and Vazquez back in 2014. What one player would make the team better today than having those 4 playing for us? Also keep in mind that those 4 players playing at their current level are probably worth well more than $100 million per year. Keep waiting. I've never said we should trade Betts or Bogaerts. Heck I was the one telling people that Betts had more value than just about anyone this offseason when posters wanted to trade him for Harvey. Bradley has been my boy for years and I argued time and time again that he could hit major league pitching when everyone else didn't and wanted to dump him for pennies on the dollar. I'm willing to trade prospects, just not the ones I think are elite.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 3, 2016 14:22:48 GMT -5
The point is that prospects can help our team by playing them. I'm sure there were some trades where you would have been fine to trade Bogaerts, Betts, JBJ and Vazquez back in 2014. What one player would make the team better today than having those 4 playing for us? Also keep in mind that those 4 players playing at their current level are probably worth well more than $100 million per year. Keep waiting. I've never said we should trade Betts or Bogaerts. Heck I was the one telling people that Betts had more value than just about anyone this offseason when posters wanted to trade him for Harvey. Bradley has been my boy for years and I argued time and time again that he could hit major league pitching when everyone else didn't and wanted to dump him for pennies on the dollar. I'm willing to trade prospects, just not the ones I think are elite. The whole point of this thread is that Miami will want ALL of our elite prospects for Fernandez. I want to see Moncada, Benintendi, Devers and Espinoza play for the Red Sox. I'm pretty certain 1-3 of them will be like Betts/Bogaerts quality.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 3, 2016 14:53:18 GMT -5
Fernandez is an elite talent but his injury history scares me. If I'm giving up elite talent to get elite talent, II want a young, healthy arm (Velasquez, Nola, Thor, etc) or I want a proven position player. Even in the case of Thor, I'm not so sure I pull the trigger when it would cost three of the top 4 prospects in the Sox system. If I'm trading 3-4 of the Sox current top 6 prospects - which is legitimately what a player like Fernandez would cost - I want Mike Trout or I am holding onto those resources for development/other deals.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 3, 2016 14:58:20 GMT -5
I've never said we should trade Betts or Bogaerts. Heck I was the one telling people that Betts had more value than just about anyone this offseason when posters wanted to trade him for Harvey. Bradley has been my boy for years and I argued time and time again that he could hit major league pitching when everyone else didn't and wanted to dump him for pennies on the dollar. I'm willing to trade prospects, just not the ones I think are elite. The whole point of this thread is that Miami will want ALL of our elite prospects for Fernandez. I want to see Moncada, Benintendi, Devers and Espinoza play for the Red Sox. I'm pretty certain 1-3 of them will be like Betts/Bogaerts quality. No the point is if we should acquire Fernandez and the pros and cons. Fernandez will not cost 4 top 20 prospects! That is the crazy trade package ESPN threw out for Trout. An over the top offer were they couldn't say no, yet would because it's Trout, best player in Baseball, young and signed long term. You can't just take rumors like what they asked the Dodgers for and think that's the price. Just remember what the Phillies wanted in rumors for Hamels and then look at what they got. They got like half of what they were rumored to want from us.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 3, 2016 15:17:53 GMT -5
Wrong. Take the money you want to throw at Fernandez. Extend Bogaerts, Bradley, and Betts. Continue developing the FOUR top-20 prospects. Draft 12th in the first round this summer. Have a decade-long window instead of 3 years. I mean, it's genuinely laughable to me that you're **certain** that the Sox can extend Fernandez, but you put it down as gospel that the Sox's young players are automatically leaving via FA. It's bizarre. It's amazing to me that given what the Sox have been through the last 6-7 years, you want to repeat the cycle. It's wasting my time talking about it. I'm done. You have tunnel vision and think your way is the only one that makes sense. Price can and most likely will opt out, in which case you could let him Walk and have Fernandez as his replacement. Thus giving you a younger ACE and plenty of money to resign Betts, Bradley and Bogaerts. But if they all continue to mash you won't most likely be able to extend all 3 of them if the cost is 20 to 30 plus million a year for what could be 7 to 10 year contracts. It's not crazy to call our window the next 3-4 years, that's how GM look at it. DD is not working on a 10 year plan and a decade long window. You also seem to be forgetting that the heart and soul of the team is retiring after this year, thus this might be the best chance at a championship for the next ten years. The correct path is something in the middle of your don't trade our prospects continue the path and people that want to trade a crap load of top prospects to win this year. "You have tunnel vision." No, you have problems with reading comprehension. I have a very specific issue with trading bunches of prospects for established superstars, particularly those making or expected to make in the very near future, exhorbitant salaries. I clearly stated that even there, there are exceptions. You seem to have a penchant for interpreting what people say as an extreme, and then using that straw man to rail against. I'm not sure what possessed you with the need to be "right" all of the time, but you seem to take every disagreement as a personal affront. The funny thing is, I absolutely agree that *wise* prospect trades are a part of building a good team. How you veered of on your odd little tangential interpretation I don't know. If you can find somewhere where I said, patently "don't trade our prospects" in that silly general sense, I'd love to see it. Until then, maybe you can stop making up others' arguments just so you can feel "right." All along I've said that the issue here is one of value, not specifically trading prospects.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 3, 2016 15:20:01 GMT -5
Hey, maybe everyone should chill out a little. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 3, 2016 15:26:28 GMT -5
This is one article. There are several, including the original which goes into more detail. BA may even have done their own analysis. espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/43074/a-study-on-success-rate-of-prospectscamdendepot.blogspot.com/2013/12/death-to-tinstaapp-updating-mckinneys.html?m=1And you're confused if you think I don't like the trade. That's wrong: I don't like the **philosophy** in general. Trading bunches of prospects for single MLB superstars, particularly risky ones, is very rarely a wise move. There are exceptions (Pedro being one, although that was just two high-level pitching prospects, so I'm not sure it counts; Mighy Cabrera). This is a philosophy of fiscal irresponsibility. It creates major talent gaps down the road, which usually require expensive FAs to fill. That thins out the talent pool further by losing draft picks, and creating high-cost, long-term roadblocks to talent development. There are more efficient means to acquire talent. Just look at the Cubs and Red Sox: teams built on young cores. I'm confused because I haven't proposed a trade in this thread or even said we should do that trade to a trade proposed by another poster. I didn't propose trading 4 top prospects including ERod yet you act like I did. You have confused another posters comments for something you think I said. I'm also not confused by what you want, keep all prospects because in your mind that will make us contenders for the next decade, that's very simple to understand. Now onto prospects having dramatically higher success rates than 20 years ago. That is not what that article says. Article says 70% of top 100 prospects are busts, read that again 70% of top 100 prospects become busts. Now top 20 positional players bust at almost same rate, it actually increased very slightly in 20 years. The article does say that there has been a huge decrease in bust amount in top 20 pitching prospects. Which he thinks is the results of teams keeping pitchers healthy like limited workloads and better medical treatments. No, you acted like I did. I didn't confuse anything. I responded to your "fans overrate prospects" opinion. If you don't want feedback, don't post. I was responding to pedro45 re: the trade, not you. And the article shows a much improved overall success rate in the past 20 years or so...something like 50% for position players and triple for pitchers. The absolute percentages are not large for position players, but relatively they are. And for pitchers it's ridiculously higher.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 3, 2016 15:27:14 GMT -5
Hey, maybe everyone should chill out a little. Thanks. Yeah, I'm done. Probably should have been before
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 6, 2016 2:52:24 GMT -5
That's really the window for most teams with players in their primes like Pedrioa, Betts, Xander, Price, Kimbrel, and company. The Sox window to win is the next 3-4 years. Then Mookie and Xander are free agents, Price might be gone or a number 2-3 starter after that, Kimbrel will be in his 30's and probably will be gone too. This is all about this great window to go for it again. Wrong. Take the money you want to throw at Fernandez. Extend Bogaerts, Bradley, and Betts. Continue developing the FOUR top-20 prospects. Draft 12th in the first round this summer. Have a decade-long window instead of 3 years. I mean, it's genuinely laughable to me that you're **certain** that the Sox can extend Fernandez, but you put it down as gospel that the Sox's young players are automatically leaving via FA. It's bizarre. It's amazing to me that given what the Sox have been through the last 6-7 years, you want to repeat the cycle. It's wasting my time talking about it. I'm done. I didn't assume that Xander and Mookie would be gone, but as far as things stand right now and today, they'll be both free agents in 3-4 years unless they do indeed get extended with all the Porcello, Hanley, Pablo, and Castillo contracts gone. I hope that's the case too because yes I would like to see that window get extended for more than just 3-4 years. Xander and Mookie will be some of the biggest parts of the team if that window does get extended even further. As of right now and as this teams constructed, the Sox best chance to win is the next 3-4 years. The best years of Price, Eduardo, Betts, Xander, JBJ, Kimbrel, and Pedrioa are all here right now. These are core franchise players here. Hopefully Xander, Eduardo, and Mookie can keep that prime going longer than most of the others on this list, especially when considering their ages. Having that decade long success is generally a hard thing to predict. In order to do that you have to almost hit on half of those top 4 prospects, if not three. These players are going to have to be impact players. That's a risk too, like with Fernandez's elbow. I'm not certain that Fernandez can be extended, but it is generally a more favorable situation here then really any team in baseball right now. Any young player that gets traded to the Sox, should be thinking long-term. All the young players here have to be thinking that too. This isn't a "go for it" concept to win now. Getting Fernandez is at least 3-5 year plan with this team, if not more if acquired.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 6, 2016 3:00:52 GMT -5
I've never said we should trade Betts or Bogaerts. Heck I was the one telling people that Betts had more value than just about anyone this offseason when posters wanted to trade him for Harvey. Bradley has been my boy for years and I argued time and time again that he could hit major league pitching when everyone else didn't and wanted to dump him for pennies on the dollar. I'm willing to trade prospects, just not the ones I think are elite. The whole point of this thread is that Miami will want ALL of our elite prospects for Fernandez. I want to see Moncada, Benintendi, Devers and Espinoza play for the Red Sox. I'm pretty certain 1-3 of them will be like Betts/Bogaerts quality. They will ask all they want, but they will get the best offer and move on. Miguel Cabrera cost 2 franchise prospect building players back then in Andrew Miller and Cameron Maybin (yes there was more, but those were the headliners in the deal). Fernandez won't cost all 4 players, I'm very sure of that. Especially with only 2 years left of arbitration after this season. This isn't the Mike Trout package scenario. If it is, I'll admit I'm wrong and come and say I was dumb in thinking otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jun 6, 2016 12:45:42 GMT -5
Same argument went on when Stanton was nearing free agency and what happened? Miami has capital and they showed it when they signed Gordan. Payroll sits at 84 to 85 million. With all the TV revenue pouring into the game, u think there trading an elite SP?
Let's be realistic. Not a chance.
Teams looking to deal are teams who have invested high and shown zero return. SD, AR and possibly Anaheim
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 6, 2016 16:30:10 GMT -5
Same argument went on when Stanton was nearing free agency and what happened? Miami has capital and they showed it when they signed Gordan. Payroll sits at 84 to 85 million. With all the TV revenue pouring into the game, u think there trading an elite SP? Let's be realistic. Not a chance. Teams looking to deal are teams who have invested high and shown zero return. SD, AR and possibly Anaheim You get that the player has to want to sign an extension right? Been a ton of reports that Fernandez wants out and his agent is Boras. If you wanna be realistic, chances are he gets traded. Chances are he won't sign extension, thus leaving Miami to compete with all teams to resign him or trade him. Rays signed Longoria and still traded Price. Much more risk giving mega deal to pitcher than positional player. If elite pitcher will leave in Free Agency for one comp pick, yes I think a smart team will trade him before he reaches free agency. Only way that changes is if Miami becomes a contender, that could change everything.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 6, 2016 19:26:06 GMT -5
Same argument went on when Stanton was nearing free agency and what happened? Miami has capital and they showed it when they signed Gordan. Payroll sits at 84 to 85 million. With all the TV revenue pouring into the game, u think there trading an elite SP? Let's be realistic. Not a chance. Teams looking to deal are teams who have invested high and shown zero return. SD, AR and possibly Anaheim Stanton is also in a heavily backloaded deal that helps the Marlins until the opt out year. Even still, there's many ways of the Marlins getting out of that deal. The Marlins were lucky that Stanton felt he needed to get extended the same year he got hit in the face with a baseball too. Made him take things into perspective and take the money before he risks playing baseball again. Stanton is a extreme set of circumstances that lead the Marlins into extending him. Fernandez won't do the same. Especially if he becomes a 200 inning pitcher this year.
|
|
|